andrewducker (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-11 09:04 am
andrewducker) wrote2010-05-11 09:04 am
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
So, I say to H - let the Cons and Lib Dems form a government, fuck everything up, and people will realise how bad they are. H says, but think of all the people who will suffer, and the irreversible damage they might do. It's a difficult one.
Whoever forms the next government has got a task so unpopular and difficult that they will end up out of power for a generation as a result. Hence my preference that the Tories suffer, especially as its what they did last time that contributed to the problem.
i'm not sure, this round of government is going to any party any favours. Given the scale and type of cuts that are going to have to be made. Its a shame its not the labour party who's going to have to deal with it. Whats best for the conservatives is stay out of it, which is totally why i want them in there, cause then it'll be their last four years ever
I say shame its not the labour party, mainly cause they caused it
I think despite the party faithful being slightly horrified at the prospect of a Tory led coalition, it would be the best result. We would be getting an incremental change towards a Single Transferable Vote in the shape of A.V. as well as a full debate and referendum on the subject so that the public can be informed.
It will be interesting to see what the increasingly frustrated Tory press make of it all as the Tories won't be obliged to campaign in favour of AV and yet most ofthe general public will be in favour of reform. It could be another nail in the coffin of the newspapers dictating politics to the masses. After the bluster of "The Sun what won it" we now have a Hung parliment because people DIDN'T listen to the tabloids, which is refreshing.
Whilst under normal circumstances I would much prefer Labour and Lib Dems in power together, the position is currently untenable; Tories got the biggest vote and Labour are without a leader. Clegg is in a horrible position of being damned by the party or damned by the rest of the public if he chooses Tories or Labour respectively, but this is ALL about getting reforms through and once that happens it is a game changer. In a year's time when the coalition enevitably collaspes, Lib Dems will gain far more marginal seats and the "wasted vote" brigade will be fair less effective.
It will be interesting to see what the increasingly frustrated Tory press make of it all as the Tories won't be obliged to campaign in favour of AV and yet most ofthe general public will be in favour of reform. It could be another nail in the coffin of the newspapers dictating politics to the masses. After the bluster of "The Sun what won it" we now have a Hung parliment because people DIDN'T listen to the tabloids, which is refreshing.
Whilst under normal circumstances I would much prefer Labour and Lib Dems in power together, the position is currently untenable; Tories got the biggest vote and Labour are without a leader. Clegg is in a horrible position of being damned by the party or damned by the rest of the public if he chooses Tories or Labour respectively, but this is ALL about getting reforms through and once that happens it is a game changer. In a year's time when the coalition enevitably collaspes, Lib Dems will gain far more marginal seats and the "wasted vote" brigade will be fair less effective.
Don't really care who runs the country for the next couple of years. In the long term we need electoral reform.
That's my view generally as well. I'd take a Tory/LD alliance if it meant we got PR.
yet most ofthe general public will be in favour of reform.
I'm not sure that is the case. 78% of the electorate did not vote for a party in favour of electoral reform.
I'm not sure that is the case. 78% of the electorate did not vote for a party in favour of electoral reform.
And yet the longer the current situation goes on, the more people will be convinced of the opposite. FPtP rarely throws up these situations whre no single party has a majority, whereas PR pretty much guarantees it will happen every time we have an election.
Labour have actually come out of this in pretty good nick. They avoided the Tory attempts at decapitation, kept a substantial number of seats, fought a dignified campaign and swept up at the local elections (how come no-one is talking about that). They're poised to bounce straight back into power if they pick the right leader and keep acting like the natural party of government.
Which won't happen if they form a big rainbow coalition. A creaky alliance is going to make the involved parties look weak, plus now there's the issue of Labour trying to foist a second unelected Prime Minister on the country.
They should sit out this dance and wait for the next one.
I think the Lib Dems are going to get eaten alive next election. I don't see what they can do to improve on their performance this year, so the only way is down. It will be even worse if it's an emotive election along traditional Left V Right battlelines: Labour and Tory supporters will run back to their own parties to keep the other ones out.
The only real hope for the Lib Dems is the introduction of PR, but imho they've got no chance of getting that from Cameron and I'm not sure a LibLab alliance will be in a strong enough position to push it through. Even then, we're all assuming that a referendum on PR would result in a Yes from the British people. Don't be so sure. Right now, pro-PR types are dominating this conversation, but there may be a surprising amount of resistance when it's but to the public.
[/tuppenceworth]
Which won't happen if they form a big rainbow coalition. A creaky alliance is going to make the involved parties look weak, plus now there's the issue of Labour trying to foist a second unelected Prime Minister on the country.
They should sit out this dance and wait for the next one.
I think the Lib Dems are going to get eaten alive next election. I don't see what they can do to improve on their performance this year, so the only way is down. It will be even worse if it's an emotive election along traditional Left V Right battlelines: Labour and Tory supporters will run back to their own parties to keep the other ones out.
The only real hope for the Lib Dems is the introduction of PR, but imho they've got no chance of getting that from Cameron and I'm not sure a LibLab alliance will be in a strong enough position to push it through. Even then, we're all assuming that a referendum on PR would result in a Yes from the British people. Don't be so sure. Right now, pro-PR types are dominating this conversation, but there may be a surprising amount of resistance when it's but to the public.
[/tuppenceworth]
That is an illogical argument. Most people don't vote for a party on the basis of a single issue.
True, but I still doubt the majority of the electorate will vote in favour of voting reform, especially as both the major parties will campaign against it.
I think you'll find that it's an international problem, mostly precipitated by the previous Republican administration in the United States. The reason the UK has got a particularly poor dose is because of the liberalisation of the financial markets brought in by the Thatcher government. Where "liberalisation" means "changing the law to allow them to do all sorts of dodgy snake oil stuff like they can in the States".
The fact that we're not as deep in it as Greece (which has internal corruption problems) or Ireland (over-reliant on the US) can be credited to the outgoing Labour government.
The fact that we're not as deep in it as Greece (which has internal corruption problems) or Ireland (over-reliant on the US) can be credited to the outgoing Labour government.
I know just what you mean. There is a risk though that they will try to fiddle the electoral boundaries to lock themselves into permanent power, and also that they might dismantle the BBC. I'd hate that to happen.
I'd (just) prefer a progressive alliance if I had a bit more confidence that it wouldn't collapse, I think. But I don't have that confidence, and I'd rather have Lib/Con than go into another general election where I expect the Tories would get in with ease.
And while all this uncertainty is going on, we can't get involved in illegal wars. Sounds like a win to me.
Infact here's the first link I can find on polls for PR.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7697099/General-Election-2010-half-of-voters-want-proportional-representation.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7697099/General-Election-2010-half-of-voters-want-proportional-representation.html
Brown had 12 years to bring regulation back in, and not only didn't, but talked about how great our system was. I hold him entirely responsible for the lack of regulation that caused us to do as badly as we did.
Polls come out in favour of PR at the mo, but, as u say, difficult to know how people will vote once Murdoch has finished with them.
It's in the interests of the Conservative Party that there be a further General Election later this year, after they have gained credibility from being in government, but before they've had to do anything very unpopular. The other parties will be at a relative disadvantage funding their campaigns.
Are you saying that 12 years wasn't long enough to reform the regulation of the financial sector? Or something else?
I am giving your shifting of blame the full respect it deserves.
Shifting of blame?
Brown was in power. He had control over the legislation. Are you actually saying that Brown couldn't have reformed the system?
Because that seems like massive blame-shifting to me. 12 years is a very long time, politically speaking. To blame the people who hadn't been in power for 12 years seems staggeringly odd to me.
Sure, if the problem had happened in the first term, then I'd blame the Tories. The problems that happened in 2000? Absolutely, we were still recovering from the damage they did to the system.
But in 2009?
How long would Labour have had to hold power for them to have responsibility for the way the country is run?
Brown was in power. He had control over the legislation. Are you actually saying that Brown couldn't have reformed the system?
Because that seems like massive blame-shifting to me. 12 years is a very long time, politically speaking. To blame the people who hadn't been in power for 12 years seems staggeringly odd to me.
Sure, if the problem had happened in the first term, then I'd blame the Tories. The problems that happened in 2000? Absolutely, we were still recovering from the damage they did to the system.
But in 2009?
How long would Labour have had to hold power for them to have responsibility for the way the country is run?
Page 1 of 3