• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

UK - David Cameron 3rd Term

Francesca R said:
If Cameron is PM and there isn't a referendum, it is breaking a pledge.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm, I'm not sure I agree. If he were in a position to deliver a referendum and he didn't, then that would be breaking a pledge. If he were PM but not in a position to deliver a referendum because of his coalition partner's objection, then I wouldn't be characterising it thus.
 
Francesca R said:
Since it does not appear that the SNP will be in any formal coalition, it is possible that a formal coalition (that doesn't have a majority) between conservatives and Libdems might actually be the largest on offer and the one that tries again to form a government.
Click to expand...

Well, they can try. So up in the air different forecasting sites have either Labour ahead (minority) of a Con-Lib coalition, and others have a Con-Lib coalition just c15 seat shy of a majority.


Francesca R said:
Unless the SNP can (probably single-handedly) vote that down, which they likely can't, it might be the result.
Click to expand...

If the SNP had to 'single-handedly' vote a minority Con-Lib government down, surely the bigger story would be Labour voting for a Con-Lib Queens Speech?^^

Now that would be interesting.
 
MikeG said:
If he were PM but not in a position to deliver a referendum because of his coalition partner's objection, then I wouldn't be characterising it thus.
Click to expand...
Maybe you wouldn't. Every euro-sceptic would. I suspect the notion that it would not be seen as breaking a pledge (that Cameron re-iterated on TV with Paxman the other day BTW) is as far fetched as the idea that the Lib Dems didn't break a campaign pledge on uni fees. Of course they did.
 
malicus said:
Well, they can try. So up in the air different forecasting sites have either Labour ahead (minority) of a Con-Lib coalition, and others have a Con-Lib coalition just c15 seat shy of a majority.
Click to expand...
Yes. Betting odds at three brokers I look at still have the tories getting more seats. There is a persistent bias versus polling algorithms because "the market" expects a late swing to the incumbent devil you know. Might be wrong of course.

If Labour gets more seats then a LibLab minority coalition (perhaps with SDLP) is more likely.
 
Francesca R said:
If Labour gets more seats then a LibLab minority coalition (perhaps with SDLP) is more likely.
Click to expand...

Lab-Lib minority with SNP supply+demand / vote-by-vote is what I'm expecting.

Awaiting the 'constitutional crisis' media coverage from May 8th onwards - compulsive viewing!
 
Lab-Con coalition makes most sense to me. But I think I am a few decades early.

Failing that a minority coalition is probably the best thing and it doesn't matter too much what it is.
 
Francesca R said:
IMO those parties are closer together than Lab-SNP or Con-UKIP
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, it is almost irrelevant in comparison with the vitriolic, tribal hatred that each has for the other. That is what would make any coalition talks amusing.
 
I don't really mean Lab-Con are closer to each other than Lab-SNP on the union, which is obvious. But also on economic policy.

I can imagine some kind of optimal mix such as ditch Labour's plan to cut uni fees, ditch the Tories' coddling of universal elderly benefits, don't raise income tax, do raise property tax, no EU referendum . . . Ideally the Lib Dems would be able to weigh in and stop either party trying to cut immigration (though they can't do much without leaving the EU).

Ha, not going to happen.
 
Those are all interesting discussion points, but they key question is.......Balls or Osborne in number 11?
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Cameron has made a mistake, he has made his departure the talking point rather than his policies. If he is PM after the election his party will spend the next 5 years speculation on who will be next and plotting and scheming to get their man (or woman) in. they will have a fixed date to work to as well. What a dolt he is.
Click to expand...

Especially as he saw from close up when another party leader did the exact same i.e. Blair.
 
Francesca R said:
I don't really mean Lab-Con are closer to each other than Lab-SNP on the union, which is obvious. But also on economic policy.

I can imagine some kind of optimal mix such as ditch Labour's plan to cut uni fees, ditch the Tories' coddling of universal elderly benefits, don't raise income tax, do raise property tax, no EU referendum . . . Ideally the Lib Dems would be able to weigh in and stop either party trying to cut immigration (though they can't do much without leaving the EU).

Ha, not going to happen.
Click to expand...
There's no particular ideological barrier to such a development, but the logic of Party loyalty and careerism would forbid it. It's like two companies in rivalry in a market. There's not much difference in principle between them, but their owners represent rival interest groups. Just as the market would collapse into a monopoly if they merged, so would representative government collapse into oligarchy in the event of a Lab-Con coalition.

The LP in Scotland would of course vapourise immediately. "Vote SNP and get the Tories" would become a joke, and those who have been proclaiming that would be discredited eternally.

By the way, I'm fascinated by what you call an "optimal mix". Looks to me more like something out of a Daily Telegraph editorial.
 
I think Germany is a model data point against that happening.

But yes I would expect such a coalition to produce further left and right factions to split off. The upside might be a centrist party with actual critical mass. Rivalry be damned (it is pretty damnable anyway)
 
Francesca R said:
I think Germany is a model data point against that happening.

But yes I would expect such a coalition to produce further left and right factions to split off. The upside might be a centrist party with actual critical mass. Rivalry be damned (it is pretty damnable anyway)
Click to expand...
It is essential to the democratic process in the UK, and in the USA. Each party invigilates and polices the other. End it and the parliamentary process becomes a mere oligarchy.
 
Francesca R said:
(PS it is obvious from your comment that you don't know what the Telegraph thinks)
Click to expand...
I'm sure there's nobody better qualified than you to guide me in this matter, but perhaps even the Torygraph would balk at the three parties united in coalition on the basis of this optimal mix
ditch Labour's plan to cut uni fees, ditch the Tories' coddling of universal elderly benefits, don't raise income tax, do raise property tax, no EU referendum . . . Ideally the Lib Dems would be able to weigh in and stop either party trying to cut immigration (though they can't do much without leaving the EU).
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom