IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Politics in Newbury; which way to vote at the forthcoming election
Andy Capp
post Mar 11 2015, 06:47 PM
Post #101


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 04:55 PM) *
I used to support the Lib-Dems so I am no fan of theirs. But are you saying that the coalition with the Tories made no difference and they would have done the same with or without them?

Where the Fk did you get that cobblers from? Certainly not from my question.

QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 04:55 PM) *
I do not think so. I think you question is naive or you are just playing games.

You have no right to believe such a thing, other than I wanted to know how well someone knew their subject and perhaps I might have learned something.

QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 04:55 PM) *
For a start the Lib-Dems stopped them going too far right. The tax policies were influenced by the Lib-Dems (at least in some cases). I also believe that Cameron, who is of the left of his party, was glad of the Lib-Dems. Otherwise he would have been held hostage to the right of his party. Then there is the boundary changes, which were stopped by the Lib-Dems.

The question was, what did the Lib Dems block the Tories from doing. My view was that they traded initiatives, rather than blocked stuff. I also very much doubt the Tries would have lent much more right; they certainly didn't have the mandate to do so.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spider
post Mar 11 2015, 07:22 PM
Post #102


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 180
Joined: 4-September 12
Member No.: 8,832



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Mar 11 2015, 06:47 PM) *
Where the Fk did you get that cobblers from? Certainly not from my question.


You have no right to believe such a thing, other than I wanted to know how well someone knew their subject and perhaps I might have learned something.


The question was, what did the Lib Dems block the Tories from doing. My view was that they traded initiatives, rather than blocked stuff. I also very much doubt the Tries would have lent much more right; they certainly didn't have the mandate to do so.


Your third paragraph answers your first two.

As I pointed out they blocked boundary changes and blocked other areas as well. You might not agree that the Tory's wouldn't have moved more right, I disagree. As for mandate, that hasn't stopped parties in the past.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HeatherW
post Mar 11 2015, 07:29 PM
Post #103


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 420
Joined: 4-July 10
Member No.: 988



QUOTE (Strafin @ Mar 10 2015, 10:01 PM) *
With all due respect Don, I don't think you or Heather can speak on behalf of "everyone".


No, but you can make an educated guess. It is also psychological. Most people, if not the majority, vote on what is best for them and their family. You don't get many altruistic people on this planet, and if you did we will all probably be living in harmony by now.

Have you ever heard of the selfish gene?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Mar 11 2015, 07:42 PM
Post #104


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (HeatherW @ Mar 11 2015, 07:29 PM) *
Have you ever heard of the selfish gene?

Funnily enough I have, and from your example it's clear you haven't. Dawkins coined the term to illustrate the theory that the granularity of natural selection is not at the level of the organism, but at the level of the gene. You've misunderstood "the selfish gene" as a gene that makes you, the collective organism, behave selfishly, whereas Dawkins means the very opposite, that evolutions selects genes for the fitness of the gene itself, and not for the fitness of the collective in which the genes find themselves.

And you're probably wrong about people too.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Mar 11 2015, 08:56 PM
Post #105


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 07:22 PM) *
Your third paragraph answers your first two.

I'm sorry but it doesn't in my view.

QUOTE
As I pointed out they blocked boundary changes and blocked other areas as well. You might not agree that the Tory's wouldn't have moved more right, I disagree. As for mandate, that hasn't stopped parties in the past.

So far then the Lib Dems blocked boundary changes and a raise in the inheritance tax threshold. I'm not sure that makes them public enemy no1 for denying the public a more efficient government.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Mar 11 2015, 09:59 PM
Post #106


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (Spider @ Mar 11 2015, 04:55 PM) *
I used to support the Lib-Dems so I am no fan of theirs. But are you saying that the coalition with the Tories made no difference and they would have done the same with or without them? I do not think so. I think you question is naive or you are just playing games. For a start the Lib-Dems stopped them going too far right. The tax policies were influenced by the Lib-Dems (at least in some cases). I also believe that Cameron, who is of the left of his party, was glad of the Lib-Dems. Otherwise he would have been held hostage to the right of his party. Then there is the boundary changes, which were stopped by the Lib-Dems.

All true, but Cameron would not have been able to do anything without the Lib Dem support.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
user23
post Mar 11 2015, 10:06 PM
Post #107


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 4,025
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 50



QUOTE (blackdog @ Mar 11 2015, 09:59 PM) *
All true, but Cameron would not have been able to do anything without the Lib Dem support.
Technically they could have achieved a majority with a coalition of other parties, but this would have most likely been unworkable.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Mar 11 2015, 10:16 PM
Post #108


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2015, 10:06 PM) *
Technically they could have achieved a majority with a coalition of other parties, but this would have most likely been unworkable.


That's an interesting and valid point. Two party politics or rather two and a bit have been an unwritten feature of our democracy for many years, but coalition as you suggest does not need to be just two in concert. Many European nations work with a multi coalition so with the fragmentation of UK politics, it might be something we'd need to embrace. Right now, UKIP, Green, SNP don't appear to be wanting to disappear!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
blackdog
post Mar 12 2015, 10:02 AM
Post #109


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 2,945
Joined: 5-June 09
Member No.: 130



QUOTE (user23 @ Mar 11 2015, 10:06 PM) *
Technically they could have achieved a majority with a coalition of other parties, but this would have most likely been unworkable.

'Technically' they could have formed a coalition, but realistically the chances of them getting the likes of the SNP and Plaid Cymru on board are remote to impossible.

Looking at the Commons today: Conservatives have 302 seats and would need another 24 to just ensure a majority - the LibDem's 56 seats ensure a comfortable majority. - The actual number required for a majority is actually a little lower, because the 5 Sinn Fein MPs don't turn up - meaning a majority of 1 can be acheived with 323 seats. So the Conservatives need 21 allies. DUP(8), UKIP(2), Alliance(1) are the most likely allies - so 10 needed. There are 5 Independents, perhaps they'd join in? If so still 3 to go from SNP(6), PC(3), SDLP(3), Greens(1) and Respect(1), most of whom are to the left of Labour. It would be far easier for Labour to pull together a multi-party coalition.

So, without the Lib Dem decision to ally with the Conservatives we may well have had a Lab/Lib/etc coalition.

Or a new election.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 4 5 6
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 01:44 PM