poirot
Midland League Division Two
Posts: 243
|
Post by poirot on May 12, 2010 15:45:29 GMT 1
First Observation:
I think I'm gonna puke!!
|
|
islaymalt
Midland League Division One
Posts: 420
|
Post by islaymalt on May 12, 2010 16:11:09 GMT 1
"My argument is simple: if progressives are to avoid being marginalised by an ideologically barren Conservative party, bereft of any discernible convictions other than a sense of entitlement that it is now their turn to govern, then the progressive forces in British politics must regroup under a new banner. I believe that liberalism offers the rallying point for a resurgent progressive movement in Britain."
Nick Clegg Oublished 17 Sept 2009.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 12, 2010 16:14:44 GMT 1
At least Labour have gone,that is all that matters.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 12, 2010 16:15:24 GMT 1
ConDem - good label.
Good spot islaymalt. Did he go on to say, "or we could just prop up a minority Tory government and get some good jobs - in the national interest of course"? Probably not.
Still, I'd rather there was someone sensible in there than just let the smarmy blue lot run riot again.
|
|
|
Post by ferkle94 on May 12, 2010 16:21:40 GMT 1
We are living in a ConDemNation
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 12, 2010 16:29:16 GMT 1
We are living in a ConDemNation Outstanding. Sell it to the papers .... well, probably not the Mail.
|
|
islaymalt
Midland League Division One
Posts: 420
|
Post by islaymalt on May 12, 2010 16:35:27 GMT 1
At least Labour have gone,that is all that matters. Maybe so mrbunny but has 'Dave' really won? In the lead by 24% 13 years of Labour Government Unpopular Prime Ministers Worst recession in decades Ashcroft’s millions Hysterical support from the majority of the press Yet he still fails to get a majority and has to rely on the support of the most left-wing of the major parties. Watering down some of his policies in the process. No, not a good situation and, at the first sign of problems, his right wing will look for vengeance. I see trouble ahead but as a (self confessed) political anorak, it should be fun.
|
|
|
Post by thebosun on May 12, 2010 16:39:16 GMT 1
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
|
|
|
Post by onthetrain92 on May 12, 2010 16:48:58 GMT 1
2012 is getting nearer! what disasters are yet to come this year, they ae slowly building up to the climax
|
|
|
Post by len on May 12, 2010 17:57:31 GMT 1
2012 is getting nearer! what disasters are yet to come this year, they ae slowly building up to the climax Whatever your on, just lay off it for a while.
|
|
|
Post by Steve Rogerson on May 12, 2010 18:45:47 GMT 1
Early rumour is that the next general election will be 28 October this year.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on May 12, 2010 22:22:15 GMT 1
Just before Daniel Kazwinski reads his party brief about them being one big happy family and repeats it ad-nauseum, can I remind him that he was ignorant enough to refuse to shake hands with Dr West, the Liberal candidate in a joint meeting just 3 weeks ago
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on May 12, 2010 22:45:41 GMT 1
Interesting that they have agreed 5 year fixed parliaments. Means the Tories cannot bounce the Libdems into an election. The phone call from Clegg to Brown made the Tories move massively.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on May 12, 2010 22:51:34 GMT 1
Interesting that they have agreed 5 year fixed parliaments. Means the Tories cannot bounce the Libdems into an election. The phone call from Clegg to Brown made the Tories move massively. There is a get out clause when if the situation becomes untennable (IE Tories revert to type)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2010 23:10:18 GMT 1
mr bunny is funny. anyway, i think i should point out that more people voted for another Labour government than voted for our new one. as far as im aware con dem was not an option on any ballot paper.
|
|
|
Post by ratcliffesghost on May 12, 2010 23:24:57 GMT 1
mr bunny is funny. anyway, i think i should point out that more people voted for another Labour government than voted for our new one. as far as im aware con dem was not an option on any ballot paper. Run that past me again Nursie......... Labour Voutes > Conservative & Liberal Votes ? Really ? or Labour Votes > Conservative votes even
|
|
|
Post by BlueinSY2 on May 13, 2010 3:21:48 GMT 1
Prime Minister David Cameron is a fast mover, he had only been in office for less than 15 minutes when he put the first Scottish family out on the street!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 5:42:13 GMT 1
mr bunny is funny. anyway, i think i should point out that more people voted for another Labour government than voted for our new one. as far as im aware con dem was not an option on any ballot paper. Run that past me again Nursie......... Labour Voutes > Conservative & Liberal Votes ? Really ? or Labour Votes > Conservative votes even Sorry to confuse you Reg How many people voted for a conservative/libdem alliance to govern the country?
|
|
|
Post by Minor on May 13, 2010 6:11:13 GMT 1
Run that past me again Nursie......... Labour Voutes > Conservative & Liberal Votes ? Really ? or Labour Votes > Conservative votes even Sorry to confuse you Reg How many people voted for a conservative/libdem alliance to govern the country? Oh isn't life a b***h At least Cameron was voted in as Prime Minister, one of GB's biggest mistakes not being so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2010 6:15:55 GMT 1
Sorry to confuse you Reg How many people voted for a conservative/libdem alliance to govern the country? Oh isn't life a b***h At least Cameron was voted in as Prime Minister, one of GB's biggest mistakes not being so. Morning!! indeed it is, but at least i can look forward to being in opposition for the next 8 months and yes thats a very good point, and quite possibly a big mistake for Gordon, i wonder though, how many of the 23% of Liberal voters feel as happy that their votes got cameron elected pm.
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on May 13, 2010 8:00:52 GMT 1
mr bunny is funny. anyway, i think i should point out that more people voted for another Labour government than voted for our new one. as far as im aware con dem was not an option on any ballot paper. So you wouldn't have backed the Rainbow Coalition then George? The thing is this is what we have in power so we need to wait to see what happens before slamming them over any changes they make.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 13, 2010 8:51:23 GMT 1
Oh isn't life a b***h At least Cameron was voted in as Prime Minister, one of GB's biggest mistakes not being so. Morning!! indeed it is, but at least i can look forward to being in opposition for the next 8 months and yes thats a very good point, and quite possibly a big mistake for Gordon, i wonder though, how many of the 23% of Liberal voters feel as happy that their votes got cameron elected pm. I do! Lib Dem policy is now being implemented, i don't know how any Lib Dem voter could have wanted for more, unless they were either deluded enough to think the Lib Dems might get a majority or voted tactically against the Tory's (in which case your not really a Lib Dem voter, your an anti Tory voter). I'm sick of people bleating that they didn't vote for this! since when has a single vote decided who was in power? The British people collectively couldn't give a single party a majority. The only combination that provided a stable majority was a Lib Con alliance and I'd much prefer lib dems in cabinet than some confidence and supply agreement! Based on the agreement more reform will happen to our electoral system in the next 5 years than in last 10 years of strong Labour majority government, that says allot about how much opportunity has been missed by Labour in the last decade.
|
|
|
Post by monkee on May 13, 2010 10:38:17 GMT 1
Sorry to confuse you Reg How many people voted for a conservative/libdem alliance to govern the country? Oh isn't life a b***h At least Cameron was voted in as Prime Minister, one of GB's biggest mistakes not being so. no he wasnt, he had no overall majority which means he had to rely on another party to make up the difference. this is the worry i have with the tories, only just in the door and they are misrepresenting the truth. we have NEVER voted for a prime minister, we vote for a parliamentary party that then picks the government, always been this way. it was with Major when thatcher went, and unless the system changes, you may think you are voting for a PM you arent.
|
|
LufbraSalop
Midland League Division One
. [H:3]
Posts: 468
|
Post by LufbraSalop on May 13, 2010 11:00:13 GMT 1
Oh isn't life a b***h At least Cameron was voted in as Prime Minister, one of Gib's biggest mistakes not being so. no he wasn't, he had no overall majority which means he had to rely on another party to make up the difference. this is the worry i have with the Tories, only just in the door and they are misrepresenting the truth. we have NEVER voted for a prime minister, we vote for a parliamentary party that then picks the government, always been this way. it was with Major when thatcher went, and unless the system changes, you may think you are voting for a PM you aren't. But its widely acknowledged that the leadership debates had a significant effect on the electorate. In a perfect world people would vote based on the candidates in their constituency, but we all know the majority of people vote based on the national parties and part of that is their leadership. If that leadership suddenly changes, people feel disenfranchised. I absolutely agree with you, but they do have a point especially in terms of connection between the electorate and the PM and politics in general.
|
|
|
Post by heavenlyshrew on May 13, 2010 11:07:44 GMT 1
Just one little point this country is now screwed now we will be having liberal input into the goverment.How long till it al goes booooooooooooooooooooooooom?
|
|
|
Post by monkee on May 13, 2010 11:10:44 GMT 1
no he wasn't, he had no overall majority which means he had to rely on another party to make up the difference. this is the worry i have with the Tories, only just in the door and they are misrepresenting the truth. we have NEVER voted for a prime minister, we vote for a parliamentary party that then picks the government, always been this way. it was with Major when thatcher went, and unless the system changes, you may think you are voting for a PM you aren't. But its widely acknowledged that the leadership debates had a significant effect on the electorate. In a perfect world people would vote based on the candidates in their constituency, but we all know the majority of people vote based on the national parties and part of that is their leadership. If that leadership suddenly changes, people feel disenfranchised. I absolutely agree with you, but they do have a point especially in terms of connection between the electorate and the PM and politics in general. they dont have a point when they are talking in terms of Brown being an unelected prime minister. the leadership debates were a joke tbh, instead of moving away from personalities and toward issues and sensible debate, they accentuated it. it just shows how politically unaware our electorate is , many people dont understand the voting system.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on May 13, 2010 11:34:16 GMT 1
Talking of Leadership : I just wonder who becomes Prime Minister should anything every happen to David Cameron: The Deputy Prime Minister who actually came third in the election or the Deputy Leader of the Conservative Party who are the party who came first in our 'first past the post system?'
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 13, 2010 11:58:33 GMT 1
" dave & Nick" TM skipping down through the garden in the sunshine on their wedding day was the most surreal of TV moments in a long, long time.
Stage managed, perfect, but reminding me of "high school musical" more than the bearpit of Westminster. I am surprised they didn't finish off their jolly banter with a game of fives and some port.
If we are welcoming in the "new politics" then brilliant. My fear is that both know they are screwed without each other, and so have to make it work. That is very different to "the national interest".
In the Shrewsbury election race the Liberal Democrat candidate undertook what was widely regarded as a really aggressive and underhand campaign meaning that at the later hustings the other candidates even refused to shake his hand. What must both sides be feeling now in the local party offices?
|
|
|
Post by indianwells on May 13, 2010 12:07:58 GMT 1
I think it could all go t!ts up or we could possibly have one of the best Governments we have ever had. Strong Tory fiscal policies to tackle the deficit tempered with Liberal policies to reign in the more right wing tendencies of the Conservatives. I'm very optimistic for the future and I haven't been able to say that for, oooh, about 13 years. I see it's just been announced all Cabinet Ministers are to take a 5% pay cut. It won't save much but it sets an example and is refreshing to see IMO. A lot of people seem to actually want this Coalition to fail, mostly Labourites, which I find sad. As a country we need it to succeed. If it was a Lib/Lab Coalition I would want that to to well.
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 13, 2010 14:03:06 GMT 1
Believing that the coalition is likely to fail is not the same as wanting it to. I want England to win the World Cup, but I wouldn't put any money on it happening.
I don't think the coalition will last anything like 5 years but I'm not convinced there'll be another election this year either. However I do think the Lib Dems will grow weaker as an independent party the longer it goes on.
|
|