How Long Before the Coalition Implodes

[somerset]

The sooner they go the better as far as I concerned. The way Cameron and his wealthy posh boys have demonised the poor, unemployed and disabled as a pretext for cutting welfare support is a disgrace to a so called civilised country. Even the Daily Mail is now reporting the suicide of a 19 year old who took her own life after over 200 job rejections. Tanni Grey has talked about disabled people being spat at in the street. Now Gove is manipulating the GCSE pass rate to push aspiring young people from poorer backgrounds out of the education system in to badly paid jobs with no prospects.

Before anyone says we need to cut the deficit - well we do not need to do it so badly that the rich do not get a cut in their income rate from 50 to 45%. David Laws who stole £40,000 from the public purse by forgetting he was living with a partner is just about to get a job back in Government. Did not somebody go to jail for 6 months for stealing a bottle of water at last Summer's riots?

This is a Government of double standards of the rich for the rich by the rich. This will not stop Cameron trying to bathe in the reflected glory of our paraolympians while at the same time cutting the very support that gave them a degree of independence and self reliance in the first place.

Look, whatever you say, we are collectively paying for the world economic shit pile we find ourselves on top of.....man up and stop saying the rich are not doing their bit... they are, its just that some peoples political leanings lead them to a skewed view not based on reality, paying forty or forty five % is still more than the masses on basic rate...... just stop bleating and take some of the burden, like the silent majority do.

 

[beorhthelm]

Both arguments can't be true...

i think they can. Liberals are not getting their way on their pet issues and road block (rightly and wrongly, for positive and negative effect) most Tory pet issues. they are united on one front, deficit reduction and everything else they are in stalemate. the only reason any policy seems to be getting done is because ministers work within existing powers to change. all in all its been a brilliant advert for why coalitions dont work very well, conflict bewteen the parties, compromise to the point of nothing happening. come on, its bad enough just getting single parties to agree universally to policy, so what expectation should there be?

 

[Storer 68]

It isn't a reasonable point, it's just a flat out wrong statement.
The Tories didn't win a majority of the electorate, they won ~23% of the electorate.
They didn't win a majority of votes, they won ~36%.
And of course, they didn't win a majority of seats either.

To say they did any of those things is simply false.

You're really talking about something else which has not a lot to do with anything I'm saying.

They polled more votes than any of the other parties. They won more seats than any of the other parties. More people voted for them than voted for any other party. We don't operate a proportional representation model. So how is any of this "simply false" or a "flat out wrong statement"

Full UK ScoreboardParty Seats Gain Loss Net Votes % +/-%
Conservative 307 100 3 +97 10,726,614 36.1 +3.8
Labour 258 3 94 -91 8,609,527 29.0 -6.2
Liberal Democrat 57 8 13 -5 6,836,824 23.0 +1.0
Democratic Unionist Party 8 0 1 -1 168,216 0.6 -0.3
Scottish National Party 6 0 0 0 491,386 1.7 +0.1
Sinn Fein 5 0 0 0 171,942 0.6 -0.1
Plaid Cymru 3 1 0 +1 165,394 0.6 -0.1
Social Democratic & Labour Party 3 0 0 0 110,970 0.4 -0.1
Green 1 1 0 +1 285,616 1.0 -0.1
Alliance Party 1 1 0 +1 42,762 0.1 +0.0
UK Independence Party 0 0 0 0 919,546 3.1 +0.9
British National Party 0 0 0 0 564,331 1.9 +1.2
Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force 0 0 1 -1 102,361 0.3 -0.1
English Democrats 0 0 0 0 64,826 0.2 +0.2
Respect-Unity Coalition 0 0 1 -1 33,251 0.1 -0.1
Traditional Unionist Voice 0 0 0 0 26,300 0.1
Christian Party 0 0 0 0 18,623 0.1
Independent Community and Health Concern 0 0 1 -1 16,150 0.1 +0.0
Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition 0 0 0 0 12,275 0.0
Scottish Socialist Party 0 0 0 0 3,157 0.0 -0.1
Others 1 1 1 0 321,309 1.1 0.0
Turnout 29,691,380 65.1 4.0

After 650 of 650 seats declared

 

[Simster]

They polled more votes than any of the other parties. They won more seats than any of the other parties. More people voted for them than voted for any other party. How is any of this "simply false" or a "flat out wrong statement"

Because you were attempting to explain away this statement from GreersElbow:

"The majority of the electorate voted for the Tories"

And that is completely wrong.

 

[DTES]

they are united on one front, deficit reduction

But this is the point. I should have been more specific, I guess, and said "both can't be true in respect of the economy". The point being made, that I was quoting, was that it's the Lib Dems' fault that the economy is in a mess as they are blocking the Tories' policies in that department. Either they're blocking the Tories economic policies, or they're helping them.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

No. It's a reasonable point . It just doesn't apply to the electoral model we operate under.

At the last election
Conservatives won 47.1% of the seats and polled 36.1% of the votes
Labour won 39.7% of the seats and polled 29.0% of the votes
Liberals won 8.8% of the seats and polled 23.0% of the votes

So the Liberals win nearly as many votes as Labour but won 199 fewer parliamentary seats

The British system is ALL about winning seats and NOTHING about winning votes that don't win seats

And look how many left and centre left votes were cast and we end up with a right wing government. The country is a joke.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The sooner they go the better as far as I concerned. The way Cameron and his wealthy posh boys have demonised the poor, unemployed and disabled as a pretext for cutting welfare support is a disgrace to a so called civilised country. Even the Daily Mail is now reporting the suicide of a 19 year old who took her own life after over 200 job rejections. Tanni Grey has talked about disabled people being spat at in the street. Now Gove is manipulating the GCSE pass rate to push aspiring young people from poorer backgrounds out of the education system in to badly paid jobs with no prospects.

Before anyone says we need to cut the deficit - well we do not need to do it so badly that the rich do not get a cut in their income rate from 50 to 45%. David Laws who stole £40,000 from the public purse by forgetting he was living with a partner is just about to get a job back in Government. Did not somebody go to jail for 6 months for stealing a bottle of water at last Summer's riots?

This is a Government of double standards of the rich for the rich by the rich. This will not stop Cameron trying to bathe in the reflected glory of our paraolympians while at the same time cutting the very support that gave them a degree of independence and self reliance in the first place.

This. Well put.

 

[drew]

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.

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'm starting to see the problem. Either you can't count or you haven't a clue how our political system works.

Some simple facts to help you:-

1. There are 650 seats in the house of commons. The Conservatives won 306 of these at the last election and therefore are 20 seats short of a majority (50% of 650 +1).
2. The Conservatives polled 9,908,169
3 The UK Parliamentary electorate was, 1n 2010, approx 45,850,000. Therefore it is clear the Conservatives did not receive a majority of the votes which would be approx 22,925,010
4. The actual number of votes cast (known as the turnout) was 25,047,355. Again, it is clear that the Conservatives did not even win a majority of the votes cast.

Under the circumstances, perhaps you can now re-evaluate your suggestion that the Conservatives have a mandate!!!!!

This is a hilarious argument too. The public seem to be split down two lines on the Lib Dems:

1) They are bending over, having NOTHING their own way, and letting the Tories have everything they want, so they are responsible for it all
2) They are having IT ALL their own way, stopping the Tories doing what they want, so they are responsible for it all.

Both arguments can't be true...

i think they can. Liberals are not getting their way on their pet issues and road block (rightly and wrongly, for positive and negative effect) most Tory pet issues. they are united on one front, deficit reduction and everything else they are in stalemate. the only reason any policy seems to be getting done is because ministers work within existing powers to change. all in all its been a brilliant advert for why coalitions dont work very well, conflict bewteen the parties, compromise to the point of nothing happening. come on, its bad enough just getting single parties to agree universally to policy, so what expectation should there be?

To a certain degree however it is clear the Libdems are proping up a Tory government. Yes the Libdems were persuaded to agree to the austerity measures which was not view in the lead up to the election (and I believe most of the economic figures were available prior to the election) however, their main reasons seemed to be clearly that they would get a vote on PR which the Tories didn't support, and now it seems the Tories are ducking out of the House of Lords reform which was another main priority for the Libdems.

The problem is there are no great leaders of any of the main parties and when the coalition collapses then the option of Ed Milliband in far from appetizing!!!

 

[somerset]

I'm starting to see the problem. Either you can't count or you haven't a clue how our political system works.

Some simple facts to help you:-

1. There are 650 seats in the house of commons. The Conservatives won 306 of these at the last election and therefore are 20 seats short of a majority (50% of 650 +1).
2. The Conservatives polled 9,908,169
3 The UK Parliamentary electorate was, 1n 2010, approx 45,850,000. Therefore it is clear the Conservatives did not receive a majority of the votes which would be approx 22,925,010
4. The actual number of votes cast (known as the turnout) was 25,047,355. Again, it is clear that the Conservatives did not even win a majority of the votes cast.

Under the circumstances, perhaps you can now re-evaluate your suggestion that the Conservatives have a mandate!!!!!





To a certain degree however it is clear the Libdems are proping up a Tory government. Yes the Libdems were persuaded to agree to the austerity measures which was not view in the lead up to the election (and I believe most of the economic figures were available prior to the election) however, their main reasons seemed to be clearly that they would get a vote on PR which the Tories didn't support, and now it seems the Tories are ducking out of the House of Lords reform which was another main priority for the Libdems.

The problem is there are no great leaders of any of the main parties and when the coalition collapses then the option of Ed Milliband in far from appetizing!!!

Mr Pedant, the conservatives won THE majority of the votes when compared to the other parties individually...... that ok now?

 

[Tooting Gull]

The sooner they go the better as far as I concerned. The way Cameron and his wealthy posh boys have demonised the poor, unemployed and disabled as a pretext for cutting welfare support is a disgrace to a so called civilised country. Even the Daily Mail is now reporting the suicide of a 19 year old who took her own life after over 200 job rejections. Tanni Grey has talked about disabled people being spat at in the street. Now Gove is manipulating the GCSE pass rate to push aspiring young people from poorer backgrounds out of the education system in to badly paid jobs with no prospects.

Before anyone says we need to cut the deficit - well we do not need to do it so badly that the rich do not get a cut in their income rate from 50 to 45%. David Laws who stole £40,000 from the public purse by forgetting he was living with a partner is just about to get a job back in Government. Did not somebody go to jail for 6 months for stealing a bottle of water at last Summer's riots?

This is a Government of double standards of the rich for the rich by the rich. This will not stop Cameron trying to bathe in the reflected glory of our paraolympians while at the same time cutting the very support that gave them a degree of independence and self reliance in the first place.

Exactly what I think, and believe, and very well put. The emphasis on the already worse off to bear the brunt of cuts/revenue-raising is a sick joke, but millions aren't laughing.

 

[ROSM]

Look, whatever you say, we are collectively paying for the world economic shit pile we find ourselves on top of.....man up and stop saying the rich are not doing their bit... they are, its just that some peoples political leanings lead them to a skewed view not based on reality, paying forty or forty five % is still more than the masses on basic rate...... just stop bleating and take some of the burden, like the silent majority do.

Okay, you can stop fishing now. Clearly no sane minded individual believes this.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Exactly what I think, and believe, and very well put. The emphasis on the already worse off to bear the brunt of cuts/revenue-raising is a sick joke, but millions aren't laughing.

The nasty party.

 

[somerset]

Okay, you can stop fishing now. Clearly no sane minded individual believes this.

O I believe it matey boy,... and I am as sane as the next person on this board,... infact I assert that my view is as valid as any one else here,... so like it or lump it.

 

[beorhthelm]

... their main reasons seemed to be clearly that they would get a vote on PR which the Tories didn't support, and now it seems the Tories are ducking out of the House of Lords reform which was another main priority for the Libdems.

lets be fair now. the Liberals got their vote on PR early on, and they lost (badly). there was no requirement for Tories to support it. the quid pro quo for that policy was 5 year fix parliments and constituency reforms.

Lords reforms is another seperate policy area, one that Tories support in principle (its in the manifesto to do somthing) but not the proposal offered, in particular the lack of detail on the mechanics of how the new Lords would work in concert with the Commons.

rather than address problems and rework the proposal Clegg adopted a take it or leave it approach assuming Cameron would bring the party in line. poor Cleggy, for the leader of a fractious party doesnt understand the Tories are also a fractious party (arent they all). now he's playing to the home crowd for the conference season proposing a wealth tax, no doubt to arbitarily penalise some tiny group of the population that wont bring in any meaningfull amount of money, yet consume political capital.

 

[beorhthelm]

Okay, you can stop fishing now. Clearly no sane minded individual believes this.

the numbers are out of date (its 27.7% for the top 1%) but the message is the same. make of it what you will.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/46940000/gif/_46940074_blastland_tax1_466.gif

 

[Silent Bob]

They polled more votes than any of the other parties. They won more seats than any of the other parties. More people voted for them than voted for any other party. We don't operate a proportional representation model. So how is any of this "simply false" or a "flat out wrong statement"

Because having more isn't having a majority. OBVIOUSLY.

If you have 23% (or 36%, or 47%) of something, you don't have the majority of it, regardless of how much everyone else has. It really isn't complicated.

 

[El Presidente]

The Tories need to tax YACHTs, as suggested by one idiot in The Guardian today.

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2012/aug/29/clegg-emergency-wealth-tax?newsfeed=true

 

[Don Tmatter]

Any truth in the rumours, Strauss is coming in to bat for the Tories?

 

[drew]

Mr Pedant, the conservatives won THE majority of the votes when compared to the other parties individually...... that ok now?

Wow, someone who can count!!! We know that but that's not what Greerselbow claimed. The spin you put on it is also not the accepted understanding of the term majority in relation to voting and, in particular, our parliament.

 

[00snook]

Proportional Representation is the only answer.

Means everybody gets a say, and the Government or Coalition that is in power had to make decisions based on what's best for THE COUNTRY rather than what's best to get them re-elected.