I think it's rather amusing and perverse that the LibDems were making most noise (pre election) about principled 'new' politics and how the young are 'understandably' disinterested. Well, they have successfully 'engaged' a whole range of 'young' people. For all the wrong reasons!
I cannot for the life of me comprehend where Clegg thinks he's taking his party but towards a split.
What I'd like to see from all of this is a regrouping/reorganisation of the left. I guess I may be waiting a while!
Still, as Dr S hinted, it is interesting to find that many people do seem much more engaged in politics again (or is it just the circles I move in?!). Comfy-ish seems to mean apathy.
I think this demonstrates that anger can be a huge motivator. It can also be destructive. But need not be so if channeled with some good sense.
Not to mention all the money wasted on sending 100% of 5 - 16 year olds to school, many could be sent down the mines instead, in straightened economic times kids are so much cheaper than adults to employ, they work harder and many don't really enjoy or benefit from our hugely expensive and ineffective education system.Originally Posted by brianp
The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. Voltaire
Perhaps not entirely. But suddenly we have money to bail out Ireland and new investment in the railways! I'm delighted (privatising rail was an abysmal decision and am constantly baffled as to why little noise is ever made about our ridiculous train system) to hear of some investment in the railways! BUT, it just demonstrates that it's not so much finding the money as where the priorities are.
HELP !!
I find myself in total agreement with Croydon Bob ..
(Never thought I’d find myself typing that.)
Clegg is responsible for enabling an unethical seizure of power by an unelected cabal of right wingers (the Bullingdon Boys) who ,without any form of electoral mandate, are currently engaged in systematically trying to dismantle the welfare state and penalising the poorest and most disadvantaged.
First we have Cameron ,son of a merchant banker ,(not that I’m insinuating anything about his apparent lack of enthusiasm for penalising the banks & bankers who were responsible for the banking collapse in the first place) and Osborne son and heir to the Osborne Baronetcy of Ballentaylor, in County Tipperary and Ballylemon, in County Waterford.(not that I’m insinuating anything about the indecent haste we seemed to show in our headlong rush to throw money we don’t have at Ireland).
Both self professed “Children of Thatcher”, blessed Lady of the dole queues , and like her .. spawn of Satan.
I too doubt whether there will appear anyone who can unite the disparate voices of opposition and of course without unity there can be no success.
But the fact that the students and the other groups are not lying down for it does give one hope.
As for Clegg he doesn’t need to worry about the students , in the event of him failing to deliver on electoral reform or Parliamentary Reorganisation ..
I’ll lynch the S.O.B. myself.
Last edited by Watchman; 7th December 2010 at 07:35 PM. Reason: Clarity.
Fabricati diem
As a matter of curiosity, if the Lib Dems had decided to enter a coalition with Labour, would you now be accusing the government of being "an unelected cabal of left-wingers...without any electoral mandate"? If not, why not?
Anthony G Williams
Home page
Too damn right !
Any changes to the “fabric” of the nation ,from whatever source must be backed by a majority of the population.
Otherwise where is democracy ?
This group are attacking everything ,Health, Welfare ,Education ,Pensions ,the armed forces, Police ,Prisons and the Justice system.In fact all the things that make us a civilised nation.
These policies are brought forward by failed former Tory Grandees , Ian Duncan-Smith , William Hague ,truly yesterdays men. Out of touch ,out of time and out of ideas so fall back on the old ways. Same old Tories coming on in the same old way, and they should be met in the same old way.
I saw the indecisive election results as a plea for a Government of National Unity ,(we are all in the same mess so grab a shovel and start digging).But what we appear to have is the worst of Thatcherism being introduced by the back door.
Back to Victorian values..?
Fabricati diem
I had thought that a Con-Lib coalition might lead to a sort of 'Con-lite' government. Instead, it seems to we have a full Tory programme of legistalation with the odd sop to keep the Libs quiet. Just shows I never understood coalitions at all!
From your response, I'm not sure if you understood my question. What I meant was:
"As a matter of curiosity, if the Lib Dems had decided to enter a coalition with Labour and therefore a Labour/Lib Dem coalition now formed the government, would you now be accusing the government of being "an unelected cabal of left-wingers...without any electoral mandate"? If not, why not?
Democracy is where it's always been in this country: the people get their chance to vote for the party they want every four or five years, the government then has freedom to propose (and push through if it can) whatever it wants. For really fundamental constitutional issues the government might decide that it wants the extra support of a referendum, but it doesn't have to do that.Any changes to the “fabric” of the nation ,from whatever source must be backed by a majority of the population.
Otherwise where is democracy ?
Your idea of democracy applies in Switzerland, but nowhere else as far as I know.
You are forgetting that the last government were also proposing huge cuts, it's just that as they are now in opposition they have the luxury of not having to be specific about what they would do instead.I saw the indecisive election results as a plea for a Government of National Unity ,(we are all in the same mess so grab a shovel and start digging).But what we appear to have is the worst of Thatcherism being introduced by the back door.
Back to Victorian values..?
Anthony G Williams
Home page
I can't be sure and I sorry that I haven't got time to look right now, but hasn't this government got a bigger majority of the popular vote than most?
Tony Wlliams ,sorry if I wasn’t clear but Ill take your points in order ..
1/
I thought I did understand your question and answered it ,however if not I apologise .What I meant by my answer is Yes ,of course I would refer to an unelected cabal , (how can they be anything else) especially though not exclusively if one of the coalition partners was driving through their own unadulterated policies on the back of the coalition. Thus usurping the power not gained from a legitimate mandate from the people but by closed door back room wrangling.
2/
Indeed the people do get their chance to vote once every 4 or 5 years but they usually have the chance to make their decisions based on the party manifesto’s.
Now I know I can be a bit vague about things but I don’t remember seeing any of this current debacle being put up for consideration by the electorate.
What we are getting now is a full blown right wing Tory policy steamrollered through when more people voted to reject the Tories than voted for them.
3/
And of course the previous government would have had to make severe cuts and they too would have to face criticism but I cant comment on undefined cuts that may or may not have been made but I can on the ones I know are being tabled.
Fabricati diem
Chaggle ;
the Government may well have a majority but the Parties do not . The problem lies with the fact that the policy of these particular draconian cuts is perceived as almost entirely a Tory one, and as such has little or no support.( Currently some Lib/Dems and some Torries are contemplating rebelling and that’s just over the student grants.)
Fabricati diem
Well certainly a bigger percentage of the popular vote than the last Labour government.
2005 Labour 35.2% Conservative 32.4% Liberal 22.0%
2010 Conservative 36.1% Labour 29.0% Liberal 23.0%
And as for such nonsense as "when more people voted to reject the Tories than voted for them." That has been the true of every government since 1935 - Baldwin's Tory government was elected in 1931 with 55% of the popular vote. Every governing party since then has had less than 50%.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
And you can of course add up the Conservative and Liberal vote - 59.1%
Surely the main issue with mandate and majority is that most people who voted Lib Dem voted for them because they had adopted a position to the "left" of Labour. Particularly the large number of voters who switched from Labour to the Libs wanted a less Thatcherite less tax-cutting less services-destroying party in power. Instead they have found themselves with Thatcherism X2. Labour, by electing Ed Millibum and shifting very slightly to the left, has now positioned itself exactly where the Libs were pretending to be at the beginning of this year. (And will betray us again once it is back in power again.)
This Govt has no mandate to raise tution fees or make most of the cuts that it is proposing, the majority of the electorate was trying to reject that ideology.
'Croydon' Bob Newman. The ladies call him "Thrush" - as he's an irritating cunt.
Indeed - but the lefties then play the "most LibDems reject Tory policies" card. Well some do, but this card carrying Lib Dem does not - indeed I would have resigned immediately if my party had formed a coalition with Labour".
I do hope that those who come out with the "no mandate" bullshit whenever the Tories propose something radical (but were strangely silent when the Labour government with an even smaller mandate did so) will all be voting for AV in next year's referendum. AV ensures that the elected party will always have more than 50% of the popular vote - but, strangely, neither Labour nor the Tories want it.
Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake. - Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks