coalition government

[EddieM]

Well, it looks like it's going to die. Now I'm not going to tell you where my alliegances lie, but the lib dems cannot oust the conservatives but likewise the conservatives can't oust the lib dems, bit of a mess eh?

 

[Sombrero]

just asking, and i nevr did polotics at school..do we hav to aline ourselves to one of the partys? or can we think outsdie the box?

for me, i dont really beleive any of them... i think their there for themselves only... and i would want a common sence party... that represented to peeple.

Should i start campaning?

 

[joinerjohn]

I think we'll end up with a Con /Lab coalition (they're basically the same now anyway) They'll blow the Limp Dems out of the water Clegg will end up stacking shelves at his local Tesco's in a few years (after realising no one want's his taxes on the middle classes, specially not the middle classes)

 

[chapeau]

This is the first government in my lifetime that has had over 50% of the people voting support them. So this is the most representative we have got.

 

[AronSearle]

This is the first government in my lifetime that has had over 50% of the people voting support them. So this is the most representative we have got.

Pretty much, we got what we voted for.

The lib dems are very pro europe, pro big state spending and "make it up as you go" taxes.

The cons are painted as the party that wants to privatise everything and destroy services, but that's nonsense if you actually pay attention. They are just as pro 'big government' as labour, they just think that some services are better provided state funded but privately provided. They are also more pro than anti Europe, they make it clear they will make noise about the EU, but won't ultimately rock the boat too much.

They are both doing, or not doing, what you would expect them to do if you looked at their party before the vote (though the lib dems did break their promise on an EU referendum).

 

[Phil54]

This is the first government in my lifetime that has had over 50% of the people voting support them. So this is the most representative we have got.

Oh, I can't resist that.

This is the first government in my lifetime that had nobody actually vote for them.

Those that voted Tory didn't vote for a coalition. Those that vote LibDem didn't vote for a coalition. And those that voted for any other party sure didn't vote for a coalition.

If, for instance, someone voted Tory, and did it intelligently, they read their manifesto, compared to the manifestos of the other parties, factored in any other criteria they considered relevant (like Gordon Brown and how his grandiose promises had actually worked out) and voted accordingly.

Them after nobody won outright, the coalition agreement was stitched together in a cosy little backroom deal, or rather, a series of back room deals, into a "manifesto" that they called the coalition agreement that absolutely none of us actually voted for.

It is true that over 50% of the people voting voting for one or the other of the parties now in the coalition, but neither coalition party is actually pursuing the program in government that they put out as their prospectus to get that vote. Neither is actually doing what it said it would when we voted for them.

Moreover, how many of those that voted for one of the coalition parties would have voted for someone else, like Labour, had they known what they were going to get?

My bet is that quite a few people that often voted Labour voted LibDem as a tactical step. Had they known a LibDem n=vote might put a Tory-led coalition in power, I doubt they'd have voted LD.

And I'd bet quite a few students voted LD on the basis of their much-publicised tuition-fee pledge, and we all know how that worked out. That is one very clear example of how the program of the government we got is not the program of any of the parties we voted for.

So I beg to differ.Not only did more than 50% of those voting not vote for the government we got, but 0% voted for it. Some people may well have voted for it had in been an option, but a lot would not have, and might well have voted something else had they known what they would get.

This government, arguably, has no democratic mandate at all. Which is quite ironic, really, considering that a good part of what it's done is exactly what the country needed, even though like a lot of medicines, it's damn unpleasant to swallow at the time, even if it does you good in the long run.

 

[AronSearle]

This is the first government in my lifetime that has had over 50% of the people voting support them. So this is the most representative we have got.

Oh, I can't resist that.

This is the first government in my lifetime that had nobody actually vote for them.

Those that voted Tory didn't vote for a coalition. Those that vote LibDem didn't vote for a coalition. And those that voted for any other party sure didn't vote for a coalition.

That's called representative democracy.

It's what we have.

We got what we voted for.

Neither is actually doing what it said it would when we voted for them.

Sure, if all you do is look at the party manifesto, you can argue they are not doing what they said they would, but they have also done a lot of what they said they would.

But then anyone who votes based only on the manifesto should kindly step away from the voting booth.

Rather you should look at what policies they have voting history on, recent policies, history of the politician they are voting for (how many can't even name their local MP).



And it's pretty inane to indirectly suggest (in the UK system) that the ruling party should ONLY do what they set out in their manifesto, again, that's not how representative democracy works.

You want direct democracy (like in Switzerland).

 

[Phil54]

....

That's called representative democracy.

It's what we have.

We got what we voted for.

I know what representative democracy is, but what was said was that over 50% of those voting voted for this government. They did not. They voted for one MP, based on the manifesto and other factors. Once elected as MPs, they stitched up this coalition, and it is certainly not the only thing they could have done. Cameron could, for instance, have gone for a minority government. That, really, is what we voted for. But they didn't. In my view, what they did was the best option available, and I give the LibDems a lot of credit for having had the balls to do it, but it isn't what was voted for.

Sure, if all you do is look at the party manifesto, you can argue they are not doing what they said they would, but they have also done a lot of what they said they would.

But then anyone who votes based only on the manifesto should kindly step away from the voting booth.

Which is why I said .... "they read their manifesto, compared to the manifestos of the other parties, factored in any other criteria they considered relevant (like Gordon Brown and how his grandiose promises had actually worked out) and voted accordingly."

 

[AronSearle]

Once elected as MPs, they stitched up this coalition, and it is certainly not the only thing they could have done. Cameron could, for instance, have gone for a minority government. That, really, is what we voted for.

Not sure you really get the failings of representative democracy.

You vote them to represent you, not necessarily to do what you want.

Cameron could, for instance, have gone for a minority government. That, really, is what we voted for.

Again, we voted for the lib dumps and the cons to represent us, we didn't vote for either a minority government or a coalition, that was their choice to make as elected representatives.



Have a go at them for what they have done wrong by all means, but don't blame them for using the system in a manor most don't like.

Or don't hate the player, hate the game.

 

[EddieM]

I didn't even get to vote (not that i would have anyway) my MP happens to be the speaker of the house.

 

[Phil54]

Once elected as MPs, they stitched up this coalition, and it is certainly not the only thing they could have done. Cameron could, for instance, have gone for a minority government. That, really, is what we voted for.

Not sure you really get the failings of representative democracy.

You vote them to represent you, not necessarily to do what you want.

Cameron could, for instance, have gone for a minority government. That, really, is what we voted for.

Again, we voted for the lib dumps and the cons to represent us, we didn't vote for either a minority government or a coalition, that was their choice to make as elected representatives.



Have a go at them for what they have done wrong by all means, but don't blame them for using the system in a manor most don't like.

Or don't hate the player, hate the game.

Not been around for a while, so sorry this is late.

I'm not missing the failings of representative democracy at all. It's just not the point I made. The original point was that over 50% of the people voted for this government. My point was that nobody voted for a coalition. We each, if we voted, voted for an MP, and we that, if we're conscientious, on the basis of that MPs party allegiance, personal pledges and the party manifesto. We may have got the MP we voted for, but we didn't get the government we voted for, simply because none of us have had a chance to vote for the program the coalition agreed upon, between themselves.

It may well be that what we got is the best we could have got, and that the coalition is doing better than any alternative would do. I am not commenting either way on that. Merely that nobody at all voted for a coalition. Over 50% of those voting may have voted for one or other of the parties in coalition, but nobody voted for coalition, and nobody voted for their program.

I understand (and don't like) that we elect a representative not a delegate, and I'm fully aware of the difference. But nobody voted for a coalition government. Maybe a lot would have, but it wasn't an option open to us when we elected our representative, or the program he or she stood on.

Let me put that another way. We elect a representative based on what they say they'll do, and stand for. We have to choose the best fit between what we want, and the limited options open to us, that being the major parties.

What they've done, rightly or wrongly, is get elected, then stitch up between them what the coalition stands for, which is not what either Tory or LD parties stand for. Ergo, we didn't vote for the program they are now implementing. That we got it is implicit in the system, and a system none of us voted for, by the way, but our government isn't what we voted for, because the prospectus of the government is not the prospectus of the representative we voted for, or elected, or their respective parties.

 

[joinerjohn]

just asking, and i nevr did polotics at school..do we hav to aline ourselves to one of the partys? or can we think outsdie the box?

for me, i dont really beleive any of them... i think their there for themselves only... and i would want a common sence party... that represented to peeple.

Should i start campaning?

I think you'd do very well in the dyslexic party. If elected you could become Chancellor of the Spellchecker.

 

[Harbourwoodwork]

I wonder if ,next time around we end up with no clear winner between LAB CON and presumably people wouldn't wast a vote for LIB/D Ukip could hold the balance what would they get out of it?and with who

 

[Nige F]

just asking, and i nevr did polotics at school..do we hav to aline ourselves to one of the partys? or can we think outsdie the box?

for me, i dont really beleive any of them... i think their there for themselves only... and i would want a common sence party... that represented to peeple.

Should i start campaning?

I think you'd do very well in the dyslexic party. If elected you could become Chancellor of the Spellchecker.

Exellent Tho` The Speker might be a better job - orDER, Order Let Mr. Aaron Seal speak now , is he glossing over the issues , or does he just want to be a Lord of the Manner