Not at all. People who voted Conservative at the general election probably wanted budget cuts, privatisation, etc. so are largely happy so far. The Tories are still in their honeymoon period, and this would be the case were they in coalition or not.
Lib Dem voters, on the other hand, wanted an end to tuition fees and a different approach to the budget deficit. They are understandably dissatisfied, so have punished the Lib Dems at the polls.
tory boy
09/05/2011 at 2:36 pm
Very sad news that the Lords Speaker has decided to step down from her position, particularly when she has been first class at the job. Who ever is elected later on in the year has a very hard act to follow.
tory boy: the BBC are saying it is the end of the Lord Speaker’s five year term, and it is not yet known whether she will stand for re-election.
Carl.H
09/05/2011 at 4:28 pm
The Lib Dems are not the human shield of the Conservatives, they reneged on their manifesto and very real promises. They have no one to blame but themselves, one cannot go into coalition with a party with totally opposing views and simply say to the people “Look if we weren’t here it would be far worse” ! It’s rather like going into coalition with the Nazi’s and saying we only killed a few hundred Jews not the Millions Hitler wanted.
Lib-Dems were warned, we screamed endlessly here but they were apparently deaf and are now looking to blame the Tories. Well I’m sorry you have to accept responsibility for your own mess. If the policy is wrong don’t vote for it, you’re supposed to be representing your constituents who voted for you on what you promised them.
The Conservative party gained in the local elections because they are doing virtually what they said they would. Labour gained becaused they oppose the Tories. The Lib Dems on the other hand were a victim of their own lies and deceit, lib-dem signatures on promises reneged on.
The Lib-Dems have not only let down their voters but let down every politician who are now even more labelled as potential liars or scam artists. Be it a vote or a pound note you should get the product you bought.
Fully agree with you Carl.H and your last comment shows what is wrong with PR, AV or any system that results in more coalitions.
maude elwes
10/05/2011 at 5:32 pm
I concur with the two previous posts.
Clegg brought this on himself and his cohorts. He should lose his seat. He did renege on his commitment to represent his constituents. What did he expect when he did that? Three cheers?
He and the others who let the voters down should be treated likewise, making others in that House aware of what they face when they lie to the electorate.
Dave H
09/05/2011 at 5:59 pm
I think they’re discovering what it’s like to be on the other side of the House(s). When in opposition it’s relatively easy to take potshots at the people in power because it’s a cheap way of scoring points.
However, when on the government side, you are constrained a bit by the realities of the situation and even if you want to do something, it may not currently be possible to do it because of financial constraints or political ones or even technical ones.
When it comes to tuition fees, they presumably discovered that they’d been saddled with a huge bill for putting all the extra students through university and decided that the students rather than the taxpayers would have to pay it. I believe this was deliberate because we are getting too many people with degrees, which devalues them to the point at which it’s a bad investment for the country to make. In a few years we may end up with a better-funded but smaller group of universities, but there will be much pain between now and then.
I suspect it comes down to the fact that the Conservatives and Labour are used to the fact that sometimes governments have to make decision that are unpopular, but that are better than the popular alternative when viewed objectively without the media stirring things up.
I interpret the recent election results as those opposed to cuts voting Labour, because even if the LibDems are opposed, they’re still supporting them by being in government, and those who support the cuts voting Conservative because they think the LibDems are preventing them from making all the cuts considered necessary.
Welcome to government – when you’re in charge it’s all your fault.
Twm o'r Nant
09/05/2011 at 6:20 pm
rather like going into coalition with the Nazi’s and saying we only killed a few hundred Jews not the Millions Hitler wanted.
Known as the politics of the “Banale”, term coined by one New Yorker correspondent many years ago, a Jewish woman herself.
We may have evolved our definitions a little since the Nuremberg trials, but genocide is still genocide, even if there are “only” a few hundred who are done to death. (Radavan Karadzic, watch this space).
Yes Carl’s comparison is an interesting one; the Lib dems in government would have to take responsibility for all Tory policies, in the event of their committing genocidal acts!
The similarity cannot be extended very far.
Mr Clegg would be the first to claim the millions dead as “banale” and it might well be so. I did not coin the term.
Senex
09/05/2011 at 8:35 pm
LS: I was looking at your picture, your avatar, whilst reading what you said. It’s a shame we do not have a grand coalition that would certainly wipe the smile from your face?
No one
10/05/2011 at 11:55 pm
How does a coalition work? Given that the Lib Dems did *not* win a majority, and are in a coalition with a much larger party, what is the proper extent of their influence?
Are the Conservatives doing virtually what they said they would? I don’t think they would have ever have agreed to a referendum on changing the electoral system, fixed term parliaments, even lords reform (this *is* in their manifesto, but I doubt they would have looked at it seriously). Most conservatives are dead set against any change to the constitution–but here they are, going along with reforms in a large constitutional reform programme.
I’m not a Lib Dem supporter btw. I’m just not sure the response to Lib Dems so far is proportionate to what they have done (or not done), given they did not secure a majority, but only a small portion of the seats at Westminster.
maude elwes
11/05/2011 at 2:48 pm
@No one:
You must ask yourself this question. Did the LibDems consent to a coalition with the Conservatives under duress? Or, did they do a deal that had them installed in office under an agreement to have a referendum on Proportional Representation?
Once you have that sorted out, you must then ask did this Referendum truly offer the public a chance to decide on PR or did the LibDems accept a fudge to present AV?
After all consideration you have to look at their manifesto and decide if they told their voters they planned to get into bed with the Conservatives in the event of a hung parliament? And admit that when so doing they would go along with the policies of that party?
Now, if they had exposed that position to the electorate do you feel they would have gained the seats they did? Or do you feel they would have the result shown by the latest ballot?
And lastly, who do you think chose to go the route they opted for? Grown adult, well educated politicians or school boys who cannot think clearly and are unaware of the ways of shrewd and often duplicitous politics?
I don’t feel anyone has been unfair to the LibDems on this thread. In fact, I would say they have been kind to them in the extreme.
This does not mean I think the Conservatives are not getting away with murder, because I do. However, the LibDems are way off what they promised and the Tories are playing the game of defense whilst reorganizing their next attack.
Carl.H
11/05/2011 at 4:48 pm
How does a coalition work?
Surely the question should be:
Who voted for this coalition ?
Because I’ll be damned if I know of anyone and does this Government, which is a bastard that no one voted for, have legitimacy being neither one thing nor another ? You are stating the Conservatives are upholding policies Tory voters did not vote for and we know Lib-Dem voters did not vote for most others. This Government has no legitimate electoral power.
Given that the Lib-Dems were very much a minority in the election, why is that minority weilding such power in constitutional matters ?
Fact: The Lib-Dems signed an agreement they would not raise tuition fees, they did not put any small print saying in power as a coalition partner they could alter their view.
No one
11/05/2011 at 11:01 pm
Carl: so–coalitions are never legitimate unless each party to it has stated in their manifesto that they may go into a coalition. Parties who do not gain a majority and do not state in their manifesto they will attempt to form a coalition may only attempt to form a minority government? Or request another election from the voters? And if a party does note it may choose to go into coalition, it must note in the same manifesto under what circumstances it will choose to compromise, and by how much?
Maude: I am asking that question. Of course the LDs didn’t go into the coalition under duress, but didn’t they have to recognise they didn’t have the numbers to ask for a referendum on PR? What I am saying is, in this coalition, what is the legitimate amount of influence a junior party should have, and how should we understand that?
maude elwes
12/05/2011 at 2:47 pm
@No One:
I feel that should be decided by that old raspberry, proportional representation.
What was the proportion of votes against those of the Conservatives? That has to be their influence on power.
Under first past the post:
Conservatives 234
Labour 189
Libdems 149
Proportional Representation
Cons 306
Lab 258
LibDems 57
AV:
Cons 281
Lab 262
LibDems 79
However, after reading Vince Cable’s disquieting remark that his view of the recent vote came about because of Public ‘tribal’ leanings, it goes without saying the man is obsessed with nothing connected to the UK or the British people. Therefore, I can see no way back for men of that ilk, who consider the entire nation, racist, because they didn’t go for LibDem duplicity.
Now there is a man who is showing signs of power madness. And he will be a liability if allowed to continue.
Carl.H
12/05/2011 at 11:29 am
@No one
The so called legitimacy of the Government comes from the electorate, it is often repeated by Government especially to the HofL. The Salisbury convention is dependent on that so called legitimacy. The legitimacy is the promises made at election time by the parties to the electorate. If as has been the case with this Government we are getting neither one thing nor the other there is no legitimacy.
Why not a minority Government ? Why is it so hard for our politicians to vote with their heads and not the colours of their flags ? If the Lib Dems agreed with the Policies they’d go along with voting for them without the extra power of position and financial incentive, wouldn’t they ? Doesn’t it smell a bit of bribery and corruption ?
The recent election shows the electorate feel betrayed by the Lib Dems. The electorate gave them the legitimacy to be in the position they are in and they have proved untrustworthy.
The public vote on the principal that the party or member will do as it says on the tin. If you buy a product and it turns out it doesn’t do as it stated in the advertising are you not upset? Do you not complain ? Do you EVER buy that product again ?
What was it 23% of the public bought into the Lib-Dems and no rise in tuition fees. 29% bought into Labour who also opposed. Now I don’t know about your math but mine says ” How the hell did it get through?”
23% were lied to, there is no other way for that to be put. Name me an industry where cheating 23% of the public is ok ?
Name me a wife whose husband pledged to be faithful that would feel it ok that he cheated for the so called benefit of their marriage ? The Lib-Dems are in bed with another woman.
No one
14/05/2011 at 9:55 am
Maude: well, I agree to the extent that the influence of the LDs can only be in terms of the seats they got. Which is why I ask about the appropriateness of the public response. As for Vince Cable: I’m not sure of your point. He is one amongst many. Just as (say) Andrew Lansley can be pulled back, so can he.
Carl: not convinced. The LDs admittedly were coy about what would happen if there were a hung parliament, but they did say they would ‘talk’ to the party with the highest no of votes and seats. So those voting for them ought to have at least some inkling that this would mean compromise.
Minority govt is fine. But 1. is that the only option allowed for any one party? if you accept the coalition’s line (and the conservatives also went into a coalition, not just the LDs) about the economic crisis, was coalition not something that was needed for the good of the public? even if they may not ‘want’ it? 2. if it had been a minority govt, how would the conservatives govern? would they not, in effect, have to rely on the LDs (who would be put in a similar position to what they are now in?)
Name me an industry where cheating 23% of the public is ok ? Banking? ;oP
Not at all. People who voted Conservative at the general election probably wanted budget cuts, privatisation, etc. so are largely happy so far. The Tories are still in their honeymoon period, and this would be the case were they in coalition or not.
Lib Dem voters, on the other hand, wanted an end to tuition fees and a different approach to the budget deficit. They are understandably dissatisfied, so have punished the Lib Dems at the polls.
Very sad news that the Lords Speaker has decided to step down from her position, particularly when she has been first class at the job. Who ever is elected later on in the year has a very hard act to follow.
tory boy: the BBC are saying it is the end of the Lord Speaker’s five year term, and it is not yet known whether she will stand for re-election.
The Lib Dems are not the human shield of the Conservatives, they reneged on their manifesto and very real promises. They have no one to blame but themselves, one cannot go into coalition with a party with totally opposing views and simply say to the people “Look if we weren’t here it would be far worse” ! It’s rather like going into coalition with the Nazi’s and saying we only killed a few hundred Jews not the Millions Hitler wanted.
Lib-Dems were warned, we screamed endlessly here but they were apparently deaf and are now looking to blame the Tories. Well I’m sorry you have to accept responsibility for your own mess. If the policy is wrong don’t vote for it, you’re supposed to be representing your constituents who voted for you on what you promised them.
The Conservative party gained in the local elections because they are doing virtually what they said they would. Labour gained becaused they oppose the Tories. The Lib Dems on the other hand were a victim of their own lies and deceit, lib-dem signatures on promises reneged on.
The Lib-Dems have not only let down their voters but let down every politician who are now even more labelled as potential liars or scam artists. Be it a vote or a pound note you should get the product you bought.
Fully agree with you Carl.H and your last comment shows what is wrong with PR, AV or any system that results in more coalitions.
I concur with the two previous posts.
Clegg brought this on himself and his cohorts. He should lose his seat. He did renege on his commitment to represent his constituents. What did he expect when he did that? Three cheers?
He and the others who let the voters down should be treated likewise, making others in that House aware of what they face when they lie to the electorate.
I think they’re discovering what it’s like to be on the other side of the House(s). When in opposition it’s relatively easy to take potshots at the people in power because it’s a cheap way of scoring points.
However, when on the government side, you are constrained a bit by the realities of the situation and even if you want to do something, it may not currently be possible to do it because of financial constraints or political ones or even technical ones.
When it comes to tuition fees, they presumably discovered that they’d been saddled with a huge bill for putting all the extra students through university and decided that the students rather than the taxpayers would have to pay it. I believe this was deliberate because we are getting too many people with degrees, which devalues them to the point at which it’s a bad investment for the country to make. In a few years we may end up with a better-funded but smaller group of universities, but there will be much pain between now and then.
I suspect it comes down to the fact that the Conservatives and Labour are used to the fact that sometimes governments have to make decision that are unpopular, but that are better than the popular alternative when viewed objectively without the media stirring things up.
I interpret the recent election results as those opposed to cuts voting Labour, because even if the LibDems are opposed, they’re still supporting them by being in government, and those who support the cuts voting Conservative because they think the LibDems are preventing them from making all the cuts considered necessary.
Welcome to government – when you’re in charge it’s all your fault.
rather like going into coalition with the Nazi’s and saying we only killed a few hundred Jews not the Millions Hitler wanted.
Known as the politics of the “Banale”, term coined by one New Yorker correspondent many years ago, a Jewish woman herself.
We may have evolved our definitions a little since the Nuremberg trials, but genocide is still genocide, even if there are “only” a few hundred who are done to death. (Radavan Karadzic, watch this space).
Yes Carl’s comparison is an interesting one; the Lib dems in government would have to take responsibility for all Tory policies, in the event of their committing genocidal acts!
The similarity cannot be extended very far.
Mr Clegg would be the first to claim the millions dead as “banale” and it might well be so. I did not coin the term.
LS: I was looking at your picture, your avatar, whilst reading what you said. It’s a shame we do not have a grand coalition that would certainly wipe the smile from your face?
How does a coalition work? Given that the Lib Dems did *not* win a majority, and are in a coalition with a much larger party, what is the proper extent of their influence?
Are the Conservatives doing virtually what they said they would? I don’t think they would have ever have agreed to a referendum on changing the electoral system, fixed term parliaments, even lords reform (this *is* in their manifesto, but I doubt they would have looked at it seriously). Most conservatives are dead set against any change to the constitution–but here they are, going along with reforms in a large constitutional reform programme.
I’m not a Lib Dem supporter btw. I’m just not sure the response to Lib Dems so far is proportionate to what they have done (or not done), given they did not secure a majority, but only a small portion of the seats at Westminster.
@No one:
You must ask yourself this question. Did the LibDems consent to a coalition with the Conservatives under duress? Or, did they do a deal that had them installed in office under an agreement to have a referendum on Proportional Representation?
Once you have that sorted out, you must then ask did this Referendum truly offer the public a chance to decide on PR or did the LibDems accept a fudge to present AV?
After all consideration you have to look at their manifesto and decide if they told their voters they planned to get into bed with the Conservatives in the event of a hung parliament? And admit that when so doing they would go along with the policies of that party?
Now, if they had exposed that position to the electorate do you feel they would have gained the seats they did? Or do you feel they would have the result shown by the latest ballot?
And lastly, who do you think chose to go the route they opted for? Grown adult, well educated politicians or school boys who cannot think clearly and are unaware of the ways of shrewd and often duplicitous politics?
I don’t feel anyone has been unfair to the LibDems on this thread. In fact, I would say they have been kind to them in the extreme.
This does not mean I think the Conservatives are not getting away with murder, because I do. However, the LibDems are way off what they promised and the Tories are playing the game of defense whilst reorganizing their next attack.
How does a coalition work?
Surely the question should be:
Who voted for this coalition ?
Because I’ll be damned if I know of anyone and does this Government, which is a bastard that no one voted for, have legitimacy being neither one thing nor another ? You are stating the Conservatives are upholding policies Tory voters did not vote for and we know Lib-Dem voters did not vote for most others. This Government has no legitimate electoral power.
Given that the Lib-Dems were very much a minority in the election, why is that minority weilding such power in constitutional matters ?
Fact: The Lib-Dems signed an agreement they would not raise tuition fees, they did not put any small print saying in power as a coalition partner they could alter their view.
Carl: so–coalitions are never legitimate unless each party to it has stated in their manifesto that they may go into a coalition. Parties who do not gain a majority and do not state in their manifesto they will attempt to form a coalition may only attempt to form a minority government? Or request another election from the voters? And if a party does note it may choose to go into coalition, it must note in the same manifesto under what circumstances it will choose to compromise, and by how much?
Maude: I am asking that question. Of course the LDs didn’t go into the coalition under duress, but didn’t they have to recognise they didn’t have the numbers to ask for a referendum on PR? What I am saying is, in this coalition, what is the legitimate amount of influence a junior party should have, and how should we understand that?
@No One:
I feel that should be decided by that old raspberry, proportional representation.
What was the proportion of votes against those of the Conservatives? That has to be their influence on power.
Under first past the post:
Conservatives 234
Labour 189
Libdems 149
Proportional Representation
Cons 306
Lab 258
LibDems 57
AV:
Cons 281
Lab 262
LibDems 79
However, after reading Vince Cable’s disquieting remark that his view of the recent vote came about because of Public ‘tribal’ leanings, it goes without saying the man is obsessed with nothing connected to the UK or the British people. Therefore, I can see no way back for men of that ilk, who consider the entire nation, racist, because they didn’t go for LibDem duplicity.
Now there is a man who is showing signs of power madness. And he will be a liability if allowed to continue.
@No one
The so called legitimacy of the Government comes from the electorate, it is often repeated by Government especially to the HofL. The Salisbury convention is dependent on that so called legitimacy. The legitimacy is the promises made at election time by the parties to the electorate. If as has been the case with this Government we are getting neither one thing nor the other there is no legitimacy.
Why not a minority Government ? Why is it so hard for our politicians to vote with their heads and not the colours of their flags ? If the Lib Dems agreed with the Policies they’d go along with voting for them without the extra power of position and financial incentive, wouldn’t they ? Doesn’t it smell a bit of bribery and corruption ?
The recent election shows the electorate feel betrayed by the Lib Dems. The electorate gave them the legitimacy to be in the position they are in and they have proved untrustworthy.
The public vote on the principal that the party or member will do as it says on the tin. If you buy a product and it turns out it doesn’t do as it stated in the advertising are you not upset? Do you not complain ? Do you EVER buy that product again ?
What was it 23% of the public bought into the Lib-Dems and no rise in tuition fees. 29% bought into Labour who also opposed. Now I don’t know about your math but mine says ” How the hell did it get through?”
23% were lied to, there is no other way for that to be put. Name me an industry where cheating 23% of the public is ok ?
Name me a wife whose husband pledged to be faithful that would feel it ok that he cheated for the so called benefit of their marriage ? The Lib-Dems are in bed with another woman.
Maude: well, I agree to the extent that the influence of the LDs can only be in terms of the seats they got. Which is why I ask about the appropriateness of the public response. As for Vince Cable: I’m not sure of your point. He is one amongst many. Just as (say) Andrew Lansley can be pulled back, so can he.
Carl: not convinced. The LDs admittedly were coy about what would happen if there were a hung parliament, but they did say they would ‘talk’ to the party with the highest no of votes and seats. So those voting for them ought to have at least some inkling that this would mean compromise.
Minority govt is fine. But 1. is that the only option allowed for any one party? if you accept the coalition’s line (and the conservatives also went into a coalition, not just the LDs) about the economic crisis, was coalition not something that was needed for the good of the public? even if they may not ‘want’ it? 2. if it had been a minority govt, how would the conservatives govern? would they not, in effect, have to rely on the LDs (who would be put in a similar position to what they are now in?)
Name me an industry where cheating 23% of the public is ok ? Banking? ;oP