How Long Before the Coalition Implodes

[Simster]

The conservatives won a majority, and formed a coalition. If LibDems crashed out, the Tories still have a mandate as they won the majority. The majority of the electorate voted for the Tories, therefore they have a mandate. I didn't say the Coalition, as that's as you said, a by-product. It's not like the Tories wanted it all that, they just wanted enough seats to out vote labour safely.

No they didn't. That's the point. That's why they have no mandate.

Edit: actually, an overall majority of votes cast is extremely rare in this country. Even a 40% share of the vote in this country is rare. But in this instance, the Tories didn't even win the majority of seats, which is all that is needed for a mandate to govern in this country.

 

[Storer 68]

Osborne's problem is that he's trying to be Brown and Mandelson. You need a cabinet policy maker and you need a chancellor who helps ministries formulate plans. But you need checks and balances between the two roles

Wrong. Osborne's problem is that...........................he hasn't got a feckin clue.

As a populist tory he doesn't want to raise taxes cos the Tory party is wedded to the popularity it has garnered through the concept of low taxation. Problem with that is he needs to raise cash to keep the economy from completely siezing up. Only way he can do that without raising taxes is to borrow, hence the ENORMOUS national debt, possibly as much as £5 trillion. At some point in the future we are going to have pay this back, and it could make Greece, Spain and Italy look like a set of meaningless pre season friendlies..........................

 

[beorhthelm]

... Problem with that is he needs to raise cash to keep the economy from completely siezing up. Only way he can do that without raising taxes is to borrow, hence the ENORMOUS national debt.

so that would be the same policy as Brown then. He is clueless though.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The collapse of the coalition will probably also mark the end of the Lib Dems as a viable party. They haven't a clue who or what they represent anymore.

 

[GreersElbow]

No they didn't. That's the point. That's why they have no mandate.

Edit: actually, an overall majority of votes cast is extremely rare in this country. Even a 40% share of the vote in this country is rare. But in this instance, the Tories didn't even win the majority of seats, which is all that is needed for a mandate to govern in this country.

They have a majority, they have more seats than labour and LibDems combined. The electorate chose the conservatives to govern. It's not as simple as "they have a minority government", they have more seats than both opposition parties combined.

Just for informative purposes, I'm not a tory, it does seem I'm defending them which is a bit iffy.

 

[Silent Bob]

The conservatives won a majority, and formed a coalition. If LibDems crashed out, the Tories still have a mandate as they won the majority. The majority of the electorate voted for the Tories, therefore they have a mandate. I didn't say the Coalition, as that's as you said, a by-product. It's not like the Tories wanted it all that, they just wanted enough seats to out vote labour safely.

Tories won a majoirty, they just didn't win a majority. Brilliant.

 

[Storer 68]

Is it not possible to discuss the current government without bringing the previous one into the discussion? Is the only defence of the coalition at this point to lay blame elsewhere? Can we not judge this government right here, right now on the mandate they were elected on and whether they have delivered from the moment they took power? Or is it not possible without resorting partisan politics?

This governemnt does not have a madate. No one voted for it - it was created by the politicians in spite of the decision of the electorate. There is no programme of action . All the manifestos of the political parties that stood were roundly rejected by the elctorate. Howver, there wasa need to form a credible administration to keep the business of government functioning. Hence the (eventual) coalition agreement between the Tories and the Liberals. The labour party also attempted to form a coalition with the Liberals but failed.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't think the coalition will implode and I think it will be dangerous if it does. Our politicians have to show that they can work together in a crisis. If we are unable to sustain a coalition then it makes the political road ahead much more unstable.

Moving forward, talk of the Lib Dems being "wiped off the map" is naive. There are too many people out there who would never vote Tory or Labour in a million years, and events of the last 5-6 years will have only entrenched those feelings. I recognise that there are alternatives like UKIP and the Greens and I expect them to do relatively well at the next election, but I still expect the Lib Dems to poll 8-10% of the vote.

What concerns me is how policy maybe compromised in the second half of this parliament. If - heaven forbid - either the Tories or Lib Dems come up with an imaginative policy solution will they now be more likely to keep it under wraps until the next election? New ideas are unlikely to bear fruit for 2-3 years, so there is more to lose than gain.

As for Nick Clegg's posturing on Higher tax rates, I'm disappointed that he hasn't come up with something better than this. It's clear people feel they're already being taxed to death and this is a major reason for zero economic growth. Move on - find ways of incentivising people to start up businesses and recruit.

 

[Storer 68]

Tories won a majoirty, they just didn't win a majority. Brilliant.

How did they win a majoriyt?

 

[ROSM]

That would be the terrible Gordon Brown who reduced the national debt from the 44% of GDP he inherited to 27% of gdp within the first term and who then let it rise due to infrastructure projects (such as schools and hospitals which were badly in need of investment due to nigh on 20years of under investment) to a WHOPPING 42% of GDP prior to the financial crash of 2007 onwards where it rose to 68%.

To be fair though a large chunk of the rise to 68% was caused by higher welfare payments to the perennial layabouts and scroungers.

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Haven't really got faith in politicians of any type, the three main parties have pretty well demonstrated their incompetence so certainly don't deserve another chance for a while. It is very tempting to vote UKIP by way of a protest but thats probably wasting my vote and they all deserve a bloody nose at the next election. It would be quite pleasing to see Norman Baker lose his seat but suspect the good citizens of Lewes will bottle that unless Lord B is up for another coup?

The most interesting thing to have happened in politics of late is the cat fight between Nadine Dorries and Louise Mensch, maybe they should be given a primetime TV slot to sort things out. Now that could make politics more appealling to the masses in a sort of Berlusconi way.

 

[Billy the Fish]

Trouble is,there are no real political leaders in this country on any side of the political divide.
Yes,the Coalition closely resembles a shambles but anyone who thinks that Labour are the answer needs their heads testing.
We're all doomed!

Agreed. Tory bashing/Labour bashing is just a waste of time. They are all a massive shower of shite, politics is just jobs for the boys. It's full of people who have never operated in the real world, it's basically just the arsekissers and the arseholes who wanted some power but couldn't make it in business.

 

[Bold Seagull]

This governemnt does not have a madate. No one voted for it - it was created by the politicians in spite of the decision of the electorate. There is no programme of action . All the manifestos of the political parties that stood were roundly rejected by the elctorate. Howver, there wasa need to form a credible administration to keep the business of government functioning. Hence the (eventual) coalition agreement between the Tories and the Liberals. The labour party also attempted to form a coalition with the Liberals but failed.

Their mandate was established by the coalition agreement was it not when the government was formed? It may not have been voted for directly, but generally no coalition is given they are generally formed out of a hung vote. That a government was formed and agreed in parliament means it does have a mandate on which to deliver - i.e. on the policies the coalition parties themselves were voted on which form the agreement.

You could twist this into a discussion about semantics, or whether this government is working, has worked effectively since it came into power, regardless of whether you consider them to have a mandate or not!

 

[Storer 68]

They have a majority, they have more seats than labour and LibDems combined. The electorate chose the conservatives to govern. It's not as simple as "they have a minority government", they have more seats than both opposition parties combined.

Just for informative purposes, I'm not a tory, it does seem I'm defending them which is a bit iffy.

Numbers my dear chap do not prove your point. You cannot govern effectively with these numbers without an alliance.
326 to win Seats
Conservative 306
Labour 258
Liberal Democrat 57

Cons+Libs = 363 lab 358 , ConLib maj 105 - no need for taking seats from smaller parties
Lab + Libs = 315, Cons 306 - LabLib maj 9 - so a minority governemnt as the smaller opposition parties would hold the balance of power if aligned with the Conservatives

 

[Silent Bob]

How did they win a majoriyt?

They didn't, that's my point.

They didn't win a majority of seats, hence the coalition.
They didn't win a majority of votes, and they most definitely weren't voted for by a majority of the electorate.

I'm struggling to work out which of those assertions is most wrong tbh. The third one I suppose.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The collapse of the coalition will probably also mark the end of the Lib Dems as a viable party. They haven't a clue who or what they represent anymore.

I disagree, although I'm probably in the minority. People thought they knew what Labour stood for until Blair got in and Labour sold out to the City. People thought the Tories were the party of low taxation, but the first thing they did was raise Employer's NI.

To my eyes the biggest failing of the coalition is the inept performance of George Osborne, closely followed by the unimaginative and uninspiring leadership of Cameron. Those two factors on the back of Labour leading the UK into total economic ruin make the Lib Dems look good by comparison. You could argue that if Clegg and Cable had been in the position of PM and Chancellor things would be a lot better than they are at present.

 

[beorhthelm]

I disagree, although I'm probably in the minority.

you probably are. i reckon most people will remember the Liberals as more interested in fiddling with AV referendums and botched Lords reforms while the economy burned.

 

[DTES]

and whose doing that?

The current Government seem to be giving it a good go. "It's not our fault, it's the cards that the Labour Government dealt us" is the defence at every turn.

to ignore Brown's 8 year spending binge as a factor on our current economy is a complete fallacy.

I don't disagree with that. It has made recovery harder. But it didn't cause what we are recovering from.

It's also not to blame for the recession we are now (back) in - if Brown's spending made a double dip unavoidable, then that double dip would have been included in Osborne's forecasts (and those of independent bodies). But it wasn't in those forecasts... because it isn't Labour's fault we're shrinking again.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The current Government seem to be giving it a good go. "It's not our fault, it's the cards that the Labour Government dealt us" is the defence at every turn.



I don't disagree with that. It has made recovery harder. But it didn't cause what we are recovering from.

It's also not to blame for the recession we are now (back) in - if Brown's spending made a double dip unavoidable, then that double dip would have been included in Osborne's forecasts (and those of independent bodies). But it wasn't in those forecasts... because it isn't Labour's fault we're shrinking again.

Agree. Cameron and Osborne were dealt a hand from which they said they could rebuild growth and cut borrowing. Failed on both counts. This claim is nothing to do with Labour. This failure is Cameron and Osborne's doing.

 

[JetsetJimbo]

They have a majority, they have more seats than labour and LibDems combined. The electorate chose the conservatives to govern. It's not as simple as "they have a minority government", they have more seats than both opposition parties combined.

Just for informative purposes, I'm not a tory, it does seem I'm defending them which is a bit iffy.

I think you're confusing two related concepts. What the Tories won at the last election is a "plurality", ie being the single largest party. A plurality isn't a mandate to govern - although technically in Britain the only mandate to govern you need is the monarch's invitation to do so.

A majority, in political terms, mean gaining more seats than ALL other parties combined. You can't just randomly choose Labour and the Libs as comparators, that'd be mathematically false: you have to include all MPs of every party, even independents. Therefore, the Tories failed to get a majority, in the most politically favourable climate for an opposition in my life time.