No they haven't, they have been liberal. Which is way the coalition worked so well, Cameron in most aspects was a liberal conservative, there was very little difference between Clegg and Cameron I regards to policies.
General UK politics
- Thread starter Darat
- Start date
-
- Tags
- uk issues uk politics
- Status
Which is exactly what May thrashed out with the unionists.
Carrot Flower King
Janitor of Lunacy
You've heard of the Orange Book?
Which is a good part of why Clegg and Co jumped at coalition with the Tories and would never have countenanced jooining with Labour...It also explains why they all voted in favour of Lansley's 2012 bill and much of what else they did in coalition.
As a retired NHS worker, who had voted LD a couple of times, including 2010, I am never doing so again until there is a full apology from the party for what they did in government. (There was ceretainly an element of deception from Clegg - at the time I cast my postal vote, 'cos were were on hols for election day, there was not hint that they would join the Tories. If there had been...)
And then they elected weasel word Farron as leader...And didn't publicly execute Norman Lying Get Lamb...
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
PR means that parties should be represented in proportion with the votes they gather. That's nothing to do with who forms a government. The LDs unilaterally decided that the Tories should have a majority in government even though the public didn't. They were the kingmakers. They could have let them continue with a minority government had they really felt it was wrong to allow Labour to form a government (which is stupid anyway)
I don't agree on your first paragraph but remember how this began - with the idea that the LDs can't be blamed for the Tories. They put them in power. They carry the can.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Yes, I understand what proportional representation is. You cannot have as your core policy that power should be determined by votes and then pass over the party with the largest number of votes in favour of one with fewer votes, based on which ideology you prefer. Not and be consistent.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
Why the hell not? If two smaller parties in a PR system are close enough in ideology that they can combine to form a coalition that commands a majority, then they've formed a government that has the support of the majority rather than there having to be one that represents the largest minority. That's the whole point of PR; it gets away from a system where the largest single party automatically gets to form the government, and replaces it with a system that favours coalitions with compromise positions that have broad support.
Dave
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Because it's ignoring what people actually voted for in favour of unilaterally deciding for yourself.
What is the point of the Lib Dems if they just back up which ever of the other two parties is the biggest? If they do well, they drain support from the party that is perceived as being closest to them and then support the other. If they do badly, then a government more closely aligned to their beliefs has a better chance of getting in, but doesn't need them.
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Yes, actually can. And many countries do just that. A coalition with a majority of seats does not have to include the party with the most votes, that's nonsense.
An example.
Party A gets 40% of the votes (and in a decent PR system 40% of the seats)
Party B gets 35% of the votes (and in a decent PR system 35% of the seats)
Party C gets 20% of the votes (and in a decent PR system 20% of the seats)
What is the problem with parties C and B forming a governing coalition?
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
That wasn't the situation.
P.J. Denyer
Penultimate Amazing
Yes, which just emphasises how much of it's decline was down to him and what an inappropriate choice he is.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Probably not, private companies with public contracts tend to shave at both ends, by cutting wages and then using the previous public servant wages plus a percentage as the base for their contract price.
Look at BT's privatisation. The UK was the world leader in the development and manufacture of broadband capable fibre optic networks and looking to be the first to get to high speed broadband in the late '80s & early '90s until Maggie the Milk Thief sold off the section responsible for developing and making fibre optic (because some USians were eyeing it suggestively) and then the Grey Man decided to go full hog on privatisation in the mid '90s. Now the UK has broadband that's good enough to rival some countries in Africa and dear with it to boot.
Last edited:
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
Plus vast majority of the people who voted for them in 2010 wanted them in coalition with Labour. I believe the polling shortly after election showed a 72-28 split of Lib Dem voters wanting a Labour coalition over a tory one. Plus the polling for the Lib Dems went from c35% to 23% in the last two weeks of the election, largely due to Clegg (the idiot) categorically ruling out a Labour coalition.
But hey, like with the proposed national unity government in 2019 when the Lib Dems eff up, it's all Labour's fault in the media.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
Of course you can. I'm pretty sure it must happen all the time in countries that have actual PR. It's a ridiculous justification of a ridiculous decision by Clegg.
Are you trying to tell me that in PRistan in the case of the following result
1. Kill all Greens Party 31%
2. Be nice to Greens Party 30%
3. The Green Party 20%
That the Green Party is morally obligated to form a government with the Kill All Greens Party because they got the most votes?
Not only that but we aren't in a PR system. The LDs had no obligation to make a pact with ANYONE!
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
It wasn't much of a kick in the stones away from it. Actual result
Tory 36%
Labour 29%
LD 23%
A Labour/LD coalition would have represented 52% of voters. Stick the SNP and Plaid in there and you are at 55ish.
I'd understood at the time that the reasoning was that:
1. A Lib/Lab/SNP/Plaid coalition would have been so weak that it would hardly have been able to govern.
2. The assumption had always been that the Lib Dems would side with Labour, so why not just vote for Labour? If they'd formed a coalition with Labour they would have confirmed this view.
Archie Gemmill Goal
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2015
- Messages
- 8,324
1. Then don't make a coalition. Form a minority government. Or let the Tories form a minority government. That's not a justification for siding with the Tories.
2. I'm confused by this logic. Labour and Lib Dem policy was not the same at that point and I still don't see how you get from there to 'so we need to make a coalition with the Tories'
The LDs didn't prop up May's minority government so obviously they know that they don't HAVE to. It was Clegg's choice to get into bed with Cameron because, at the end of the day, they were basically the same.
Gulliver Foyle
Philosopher
That's because Clegg was a true blue tory. Remember the orange book of which he was one of the primary movers, it was tory policy from the front cover to the last page of the appendix.
Which exactly the opposite of what happened in 2010. About 80% of Lib Dem voters, all Labour and most smaller party voters (SNP, Greens, Plaid) voters were voting to keep the tories out, which would consist of an absolute majority of voters.
Last edited:
A minority government at a time of financial instability was considered a bit dangerous to the economy.
The was pretty much the reasoning.
I mean, look at how strong and stable May's government was, and that only required the 10 members of the DUP.
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
Right, which is why the examples you keep coming back to are different to the actual situation that existed at the time.
As it is, I've explained my position three times now, and you keep addressing something else, so I'm not really convinced that anything productive will come out of reiterating it a fourth time.
- Status