Boblet

Indeed. Quite the reverse. I keep saying it because it is correct.

 

 

 

I don't think it would; I know it has done, because I read the summary of the Queen's Speech.

I'm not being argumentative for the sake of it - what policies are the Tory Government proposing that the Tory party would oppose if it wasn't for the coalition agreement - I don't mean oppose for party political point scoring purposes, but actually, fundamentally oppose

As far as I can see, the "difficult" Lib Dem policies have been ditched or watered down

They have proposed an Act to make that happen, but it hasn't gone through yet. If it does, then the Tories won't be able to call an election just because they think the time is ripe; but neither will the Lib-Dems be able to force one just because they think it's a good time to ditch the Tories.

Thank you for that - I can see the point of fixed term Parliaments, but I would think Nick Clegg is more convinced on this one than David Cameron - go now, or soon, and the likelihood is a Tory majority - wait a while and, as the Lib Dem support recovers, the chances of a Tory majority diminish

This is a coalition government. The very definition of a coalition government is that two parties get together and agree on a collection of policies they will support.

 

I think I said that once already, no?

 

The Lib-Dems, being a junior partner, have had to compromise on a lot of things, but the Tories are also having to support bills which they would prefer to oppose. That's how coalitions work.

Just because you say something twice doesn't make it correct.

Do you really think the Tory Government would agree to implement policies it doesn't support - it has agreed to support Lib Dem policies it agrees or can live with and will oppose Lib Dem policies it doesn't agree with (AV anyone?)

Coalitions only work as you suggest when they are more equal partners, or where there is a history of the parties working together

In our case they have got together and agreed one collection of policies they can both support/live with - some policies they can't get agreement on, so have ditched/postponed, and one Lib Dem policy they don't support and have openly said they will campaign against

I expect that we will have an eletion in less than 5 years. I'm not sure how relevant a current opinion poll is for that election, other than to suggest to those in power that it isn't the time to call one just yet. Perhaps they feel that getting the pain out of the way now will mean folk are on the jam tomorrow. I'm sure that if an election is called early it will be because those calling it are pretty certain of winning it.

I thought part of the coalition agreement was that the Government would be for a fixed term - or did I just make that up?

Given that England has produced more Conservative votes than Labour ones at eight of the last ten elections, that's a bizarre assertion to be making.

Fortunately the number of votes a party receives in England doesn't determine who wins most seats in the British Parliament

Santa is an anagram of SATAN....just thought I'd share

Santa Claus is an anagram of A class aunt - maybe he was a she

And yet few of the people who object to England having a Tory government, ever seem to move there.

Because we know it's only a passing phase

People who have already changed their mind are stupid. Everything that has happened so far isn't really unexpected is it.

agreed - it isn't a surprise that the Government has introduced massive cuts in spending, and it isn't a surprise that they have lost support in the opinion polls as a consequence

It was less predictable that the Lib Dems support would collapse quite so dramatically, but not surprising considering the events and adverse publicity of the last month or two

People aren't stupid for changing their mind, but voting intentions now have no bearing on how people will vote in any future elections - those who have changed their minds recently may well change them a few more times over the coming months and years

It's Santa at ours i'm afraid.

I suppose as long as he comes to your house what's it matter what his name is

I know it's a losing battle, but please - it's Father Christmas, not Santa

Have Fun !

That's the plan - life's too short not to:D

I do agree with you, however what about the Christmas tree...Do you know the meaning behind it?

Must confess I don't know - I know why I spent £40 on the big thing in the corner that the cat thinks is its new play thing, but although I do like useless facts and trivia I haven't got the inclination to Google it at the moment - whatever it is it won't alter my intentions over the next couple of weeks

I couldn't care less about the religious issues or the "over commercialisation" - for me it is simply an opportunity to spend more time with friends and family, give and receive a few presents and eat and drink even more than usual - I find that, if I ignore the aspects I don't want to be involved in, they don't bother me and I don't bother them

Fantastic first days performance - would have picked Shazhad in preference to Tremlett - shows what I know

Don't let the cynical know nothings get to you MM&I - it only encourages them

I cannot understand that so called "Educated students " Cannot understand two things

1/ MPs and Councillors LIE

2/ Nothing is FREE in this world not even education.

educated and intelligent are not the same

Stan and Hilda, Blanche, Albert Tatlock & Jez Quigley

Quite like Steve McDonald now

Worst one - Samir

That individual is a representative of their party.

Whichever party a politician represent they can always say that they regret they had to change their mind but it was in the best interests of the country when new facts came to light.

Imagine the opposite scenario if before an election a pledge was made and when that party gained power found they had made a mistake but were forced to stick to it to the detriment of the country.

A good reason why candidates should think before opening their big mouths and promising whatever they think people who might vote for them want to hear just so they can get their stupid faces in the local paper

Also a good reason why manifesto promises should not be legally binding - they aren't worth the trees destroyed and the hot air produced

Maybe all election literature needs to contain the governmewnt warning,

If we do not win an overall majority and form a coalition with another party we have the right to reach a compromise on certain issues in the best interests of the country.

I think there is a distinct difference between what a party "promises" to do if they win an overall majority and what an individual person "promises" to do (assuming they are elected as an MP)

Its a pity that the government in power at the time before the election doesnt have to show the current financial situation in all its glory to the other parties to allow them to scrutinise the books before making any pledges.Problem with that is that they would be so incredulous they would probably want to run a mile, knowing that whoever inherited the mess would be the ones to take all the stick for it.

They'd still want the power because that is what they live for - few are in it for the public service - most are in it for the ego boost - they're able to blame the previous Government for anything that is wrong irrespective of who/what caused it and they are able to claim the credit for what goes right irrespective of whether it is because of or in spite of anything they have done.

Of course it was a condition of them winning. If they lost ( and they did ) the election this bill would have been passed by the Labour had they gained power and maybe a lot worse than it is set out now. However, The Lib Dems did not gain power at all. This bill would have gone through regardless. The Lib Dems could promise anything they want because they would not have to honour the promises they made. This is a coalition Government not a Lib Dem Government. Sacrifices have to be made for the good of the country not just the students who will not have to pay these tuition fees back unless they earn enough, Then only a small portion at a time. The students are mad not to see they are being used.

Of course it wasn't conditional - which part of " I PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST" is conditional - it doesn't say "as long as I'm not in Government" or "as long as I still believe it to be the right policy in 9 months time" - maybe he had his fingers crossed when he signed it

It is a simple, direct, unconditional pledge which they didn't fulfil - the rights and wrongs of whether they were right to do so are irrelevant

It is a sweeping generalisation, but broadly true, that Labour's policy towards local government was to provide more funding to those councils that needed it in terms of services for the poorer and needier - not unco-incidentally the majority of these were populated largely by those who would naturally vote Labour in a general election (but not necessarily had Labour controlled councils)

I haven't yet paid much attention to the Tory plan, but I understand it is based more on per head of population rather than their needs, so there will be some "re-balancing" of expenditure

I used to be pro PR. but having seen the Lib Dems use coalition government as an excuse to betray their voters, I can no longer see the attraction of giving them the opportunity to do it on a regular basis. I know that under coalitions in Ireland where minority parties hold the balance of power. (usually Greens or Irish Labour) the junior partners are never forced to do a U turn on their manifestos or basic principles.

 

This stuff about the Lib Dems 'having to' go along with the blatant Tory ideological crusade because it's a coalition, is just a story their spin doctors have made up to fool the gullible. I think when the votes are counted, they will realise they have done more harm to their cause than they realise, and rightly so. Maybe if the politicians see that sometimes there is a high price for betrayal, they will think twice in the future.

I think the difference between voting under our present system, and under a genuine PR system is the level of expectation of the voter.

Under PR you will have to accept that it is highly probable that you will get a compromise government, and your expectation of the policies you voted for being implemented should be lower as a result - it will be more a case of, well we didn't get this and this policy, but at least we got this and this

Under our present system people are used to majority governments, and not used to compromises having to be made quite to the extent they have been recently - that doesn't excuse the Lib Dem U turns on student fees, but it is a valid argument to say that, if you want a coalition you have to accept compromise - the bigger question is, does the electorate actually want coalition government (in general, not this one particularly) or does it prefer a system that is less representative of its wishes, but produces more certain government

A good example has just been on Newsnight in a bit about The scrapping of EMA (Educational Maintainance Allowance) which is £30 a week (top rate) per pupil.

 

This apparently will save the government £15,000 a year, per child - their figures.

 

Now you don't have to be a genius to work out that £30 x 52 = £1,560 so who gets the other £13,440? Or was it just a miscalculation that we're not supposed to notice?

As far as I know, EMA is only paid in term time (36 weeks?) so it is even less than £1,560 per pupil

There would be some savings by sacking/making redundant some of those involved in it's administration, but if that equates to one person per school/college on, say £16,000 a year, it would only equate to about a further £200 per pupil

And EMA isn't "matched" funding, it is an allowance paid directly to students from lower income families if they attend college courses

I wasn't going to go off topic again but its only polite to respond!

It all depends on how likely you think it is that AV has got a chance of being introduced - I'm not sure what credibility poor old Nick Clegg has at the moment - he may be able to regain some over the coming months when the dust settles, but I'm dubious about its chances of being introduced

Going back on topic - I'm not sure I particularly care if Prince Charles was caught up in the riot/demonstration anymore than I care about any other innocent parties caught up in it

I realise it is more newsworthy, but I'm sure he is more used to this sort of thing than Joe Public