howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#21
i don't think we can accuse the blues of being honest with people, the amount of stuff that was spouted before the election that turned out to be untruths.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#22
Howard - if we had a Conservative government you would have a point. Sadly the electoral impasse we has means no-one gets what they really want. This is normal with PR systems where all the deals are done behind closed doors after the election but we are not used to it.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#23
so barryw will just blame these failures of the co olition on the lib dems now then
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#24
Someone did an extrapulation from the current polls on TV the other night which showed that should there be another election right now, the Conservatives would still not get a governing majority. Another talking head said we are likely to continue in this vein for a long time. The next coalition could be between the Libdems and Labour as those two parties seem to have a fair modicum of cohesive thought.
This bears in mind the current good poll position of the Tories, should that fall even a tad the situation of them governing would be even more unlikely. The question is which way would the haemorraging Libden vote swing. More likely to go Labours way than Conservative I would think.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#25
I think theres quite a dilema here
you will recall the souless lib dems after talks with tories and the shambles pr talks with labour decided to go in with the tories, of course that is a decision they will have to live with.
my fear is, like the tories at the last election, they will put power before whats best
and whether it be a co olition of tories and someone or labour and someone it needs to be in the best interest of the country.
I think the political parties take there eye off the ball and put personal power first and party interests with some.
theres no doubt the lib dems will lose so many seats they will be a forgotten party and hardly likely next time round to have any influence, unless its part of a number of parties, which maybe is not best for the country.
tories are so unpopular they to will lose seats so won't gain outright control
labour will gain seats but probably not enough to get full control
other smaller parties will continue to split votes but make no real gains
thus we will go through another 5 years of unstable govt.
thats my view
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#26
read a few reports that say the same, surprising because any opposition party should be ahead at this stage of a parliament so really dave and co should be delighted.
blue insiders doubt that will last and another deal will have to be done to retain a share of power in 2015.
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#27
It looked a real possibility that the Libdems would go with Labour the last time round. I think the choice Clegg made was personality based. He didnt like Gordon Brown and they had a brusqe encounter while debating possible government. He went with nice guy Dave but they in reality shared very little....other than liking each other. We can see since then how the Libdems abandoned all their core values on tuition fees on the EU and so on so forth. They appear to be very much closer to Labour. So..a very odd situation, to go with a party you have very little in common with because you cant work with the guy from the other party.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#28
howard;
with the next election as you agree the lib dems will lose most of there seats so will have very little influence next time round, they are already small in number, but to be so small as insignificant.
paulb;
having been part at county hall of a pact with lib dems for 4 years they are the strangest bunch ever, often cant make decisions, total shambolic and this can be seen again at national govt level.
cleggy put personal ambition before the country and im sure the labour party will hopefully have strong memories of the sell out by cleggy.
to be fair co olitions don't work, and like paulb says cleggy will try to cling on wherever he can no matter what party as hes a career geezer rather than a country person.
on politics i'm sure many are in the same boat as me, but for lots of differing reasons.
dont want a conservative govt or co olition either
but have difficulty when asked to vote as to who to vote for.
apathy and the floating voter may well influence to some degree the next election.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#29
my impression at the time was that the reds were not interested in a coalition paul.
talks were very short and yes there was animosity between gordon and nick.
the blues and yellows had very long discussions which says to me that the only way forward was the blue/yellow coalition.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#30
HOWARD;
I think you will find the talks with labour was a pure P R exercise
for anyone to have gone in with labour would have taken more than just the lib dems to hold onto control and would not have worked.
My opinion is that labour decided because of the result it was best to go into opposition which was probably a wise decision
as to will labour entertain the few lib dems left after the next election
its hard to see but i suppose there has been a change of leader so maybe hes more flexible, but it would need to be water tight
i think we will have many elections now with no party having outright control that being because people have switched off politics and apathy and floating and non voters are the ones now that can change an election
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#31
still one unknown quantity keith - ukip.
last time they hit the blue vote to a large extent helping them lose about 30 seats, since then there have been more defections from the blues.
if they take the veto from flashman as a genuine move in the direction of a referendum then the blues may claw back some of that support.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#32
still i must say we have a bunch of barstewards running the country with a devious banker as a chancalor.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#33
keith, I'm not a tory so I'll give a mid way view but need to ask a question.
Was Brown running a deficit before the banking crisis and if so how much?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#34
David - he had run a deficit, not just a deficit, but a structural deficit from 2005. The economic slowdown started in 2007 and the banking crisis, the crunch, was in October 2008.
A deficit is not too bad, it is a normal thing governments do when you get an economic slowdown, they run up a current account deficit due the reduced tax income and increased demand for social security. What then happens (and this is Labour's favourite economic guru, Keynes who says it), is that you reduce and eliminate the deficit when the economy resumes the growth part of the cycle and debt gets repaid. It is quite logical that.
The position in 1997 was one of growth and a steadily reducing deficit in the correct manner (as per Keynes) and in the 1997 general election Brown said he would stick to Clarke's deficit reduction plans to try to blunt Conservative attacks in the election. He did, after a fashion, stick to that promise so we did see continued deficit reduction 'on the books' that is and in the approved Keynes manner.
But when that promise expired from 2001 Brown started increasing spending and reversed deficit reduction, so by 2005 there was no longer time to reduce the deficit before the next downturn, hence the structural deficit.
Of course we know now what was left off the books, the of-balance sheet spending switching huge revenue spending onto capital accounts through use of the expanded PFA scheme - so there was not really any real deficit reduction at all in the 1997-2001 period.
One further point - Brown made his infamous boast that he had 'banned boom and bust' - the problem is he ran the economy like that on the basis that there would never again be another slowdown. Utterly foolish of him and that is why we are in this appalling situation now and why we need such high cuts.
Guest 714- Registered: 14 Apr 2011
- Posts: 2,594
#35
I'll set them up you knock them in barry
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
#36
Just noticed that my granddaughter has posted a smiley face on this thread in my name while I was off looking for a mince pie so shall have to think of something to say about Red Ed!
I would imagine that Labour can look forward to a few years in the wilderness before the nation forgets the disastrous state they have left the country in. However, if there was any danger of them forming the next government, then I for one would be unable to vote for them if Ed Miliband were still leader as I would require somebody of far higher calibre to serve as Prime Minister. It is one thing having a complete dork leading a political party but quite another having Wallace and Gromit or Forrest Gump representing the nation and sending our armed forces off to war.
#37
I allways see Beaker from the Muppets when I see Ed Milliband , slightly off topic I know but inspired by Eds post
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#38
Of course everyone has a right to an oponion but let's be fair here, ed you would never vote labour anyway, so quite easy for you to knock them
and from your posts show you lean towards the tories
and of course that to is fine
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 673- Registered: 16 Jun 2008
- Posts: 1,388
#39
That is strange, Keith, because BarryW has accused me of being an out and out Trot on here in the past. I think neither of you can see anything but your own party line and have total tunnel vision. If anybody expresses the slightest criticism then you both automatically assume that they are in the enemy camp.
Actually, I always used to vote Tory until the last few elections in which you will be surprised to learn that I voted Labour - as a personal vote for Gwyn Prosser. Don't tell Vic but I voted UKIP in the last election as a desperate attempt to break the two party pattern which has been an ongoing disaster for this country. Up for grabs in the next election but you are correct in assuming that I am very unlikely ever to vote Labour again.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#40
i have been accused of being a socialist and a true blue on here so we must be doing somthimg right ed.
party loyalties in the old form are outdated as there is very little difference between them now.
wait for barry to remind us about big goverment.
