Cameron + Clegg - who's fooling who?

Originally posted by FMF
On the phone last night, my QC sister and her QC husband told me that they are done with the Lib-Dems having voted for them since 1992 and actually being members since 1997.

Also, in an e-mail the other day, an old friend who voted Lib-Dem tactically (normally a Green or Labour) to keep the Tories out, said he'll never vote Lib-Dem again.

Is this happening quite a bit in the U.K. at the moment?

QC = ?

Originally posted by FMF
On the phone last night, my QC sister and her QC husband told me that they are done with the Lib-Dems having voted for them since 1992 and actually being members since 1997.

Also, in an e-mail the other day, an old friend who voted Lib-Dem tactically (normally a Green or Labour) to keep the Tories out, said he'll never vote Lib-Dem again.

Is this happening quite a bit in the U.K. at the moment?

I hope so.

Originally posted by zeeblebot
QC = ?

Members of the sandal-wearing fruit juice drinking section of the LibDems?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
QC = ?

Queer Creatures?

Originally posted by zeeblebot
QC = ?

Top barristers. Thoughtful voters. From a demographic that might ordinarily vote Tory. Can't bring themselves to do so since the total Tory meltdown 1989-1992. Can't bring themselves to vote Labour, although being fairly middle-England-ish they realized that Blair and Brown were - in their eyes anyway - fairly effective technocrats, at least until 2005 or so, and certainly better than any line-up the Tories could have fielded at that particular time. Q.C. stands for "Queen's Counsel".

Originally posted by Leon Alvarado
Queer Coons?

No.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
Members of the sandal-wearing fruit juice drinking section of the LibDems?

No.

Originally posted by Redmike
Labour were offering more than a referendum on AV. They were offering to agree to AV without a referendum, and also to have a referendum on wider PR. Much more than the tories were offering.

Labour were offering what the libdims wanted, in terms of PR. Certainly more than they've got from the tories.

They could have put together a coalition which, nume ...[text shortened]... me from the sdp, which split from labour in the 1980s, I think the trust issue works both ways.

But as I said before , it's not about what Labour were offering , it was about what they could deliver. A referendum on ER that you lose because you have created an unpopular , unstable coalition is pointless.

If I give you a cheque for £100 quid that bounces it's worth less than a tenner that some other guy gives you.

I think they went with the Tories because they felt that the British people needed to see that a coalition can produce a "strong and stable " govt. Everyone knows that PR and AV+ etc will lead to coalitions , so if the Lib Dems can't show that it can work who will vote for it. Even though the rainbow coalition might have worked , it was still a big risk and would have been very unpopular with middle england and it's middle england that the LIB dEms need to convince about PR.

Labours referendum on PR would be potentially pointless and the case for electoral reform would be damaged severely. People would say "if this is what coalitions and PR will be like then forget it".

In any case , why change to AV without a referendum? Even though I am strongly in favour of it , we can't inflict it on the country without a vote.

Originally posted by Sartor Resartus
I hope so.

However, if we get full electoral reform he won't have to vote against the tories , he can vote for who he likes.

We have to think 50 years down the line with this. The only future for this country is to have a modern PR democracy. That's the objective. If we get that then the tories will never rule on their own again and we won't get these swings from left to right every decade with one party coming in and un-doing everything the other left behind. Not only that - the tories would have to go more centre right to get the votes they needed. Also , in the long term it would open up a possible string of Lib-lab coalitions.

Originally posted by knightmeister
But as I said before , it's not about what Labour were offering , it was about what they could deliver. A referendum on ER that you lose because you have created an unpopular , unstable coalition is pointless.

If I give you a cheque for £100 quid that bounces it's worth less than a tenner that some other guy gives you.

I think they went with th ...[text shortened]... ough I am strongly in favour of it , we can't inflict it on the country without a vote.

They could have built a coalition which would have been stable enough, the various nationalists would support PR.

It might have been unpopular in the south of england and with the daily mail, but that's not the point.

The introduction of AV, as I understand it, was in the labour party's manifesto. Therefore a libdim/labour et al coalition would have every right to introduce it without a referendum.

Originally posted by FMF
On the phone last night, my QC sister and her QC husband told me that they are done with the Lib-Dems having voted for them since 1992 and actually being members since 1997.

Also, in an e-mail the other day, an old friend who voted Lib-Dem tactically (normally a Green or Labour) to keep the Tories out, said he'll never vote Lib-Dem again.

Is this happening quite a bit in the U.K. at the moment?

I think this is happening in a few places. In the Scottish borders, where much of the libdim vote is really just because they're the best-placed non-tory, there's a real sense of betrayal.
The same will apply in the Highlands, where they're strong, though Kennedy's come out against the coalition.

As well as geographical, there's the people who bought the Guardian's arguement about a progressive, anti-tory alliance. They'll be less than impressed too.

So, in certain parts of the country and in that demographic who switched to the libdims as they were considered more progressive than labour, there will be people who will be unhappy.

Originally posted by Redmike
They could have built a coalition which would have been stable enough, the various nationalists would support PR.

It might have been unpopular in the south of england and with the daily mail, but that's not the point.

The introduction of AV, as I understand it, was in the labour party's manifesto. Therefore a libdim/labour et al coalition would have every right to introduce it without a referendum.

Woooah! Hold on a minute.

On one hand you seem to have no problem with people tactically voting to keep another party out , but then on the other you seem to claim that our democracy provides some "mandate" for certain policies?

How many of the people actually voting Labour knew what AV even was? How many were actually voting tactically? In any case , what decides the election is the few select "golden" voters who live in marginals , do you not realise that our givernments are chosen by these select few? How is that a democratic mandate for anything?


In any case , the committment for electoral reform and a refeendum was in the Labour Party manifesto of 97 , and looked what happened - sweet FA. So why should anyone vote based on what Labour say abour electoral reform?

Originally posted by Redmike
I think this is happening in a few places. In the Scottish borders, where much of the libdim vote is really just because they're the best-placed non-tory, there's a real sense of betrayal.
The same will apply in the Highlands, where they're strong, though Kennedy's come out against the coalition.

As well as geographical, there's the people who bought th y were considered more progressive than labour, there will be people who will be unhappy.

If they voted Lib dem then they voted Lib Dem. It's no good then saying "oooh , but we voted tactically - we didn't really vote Lib Dem".

Clegg was clear that he would try to first form a coalition with the largest party and everyone knew this would be the Tories most likely. He was true to his word , so if they didn't want this and they believed him , why vote for him?

Ooooppps sorry ...of course....silly me.... the reason they voted for him was because this stupid darn electoral system we have messes up true democracy. Which is what he is trying to change. The Labour party showed that it was not able to keep it's manfesto committment of 97 to ER - so why should he go with them?

It's the system that Labour refused to change that is now shafting them.

If Labour had opened the door to PR in 97-2000 then the Tories would never get in again. But they chose self interest instead of democracy - and now they have paid the price. They chose to keep the Lib Dems as a minority party instead of the 180 seat party they actually are (votes wise). If they had had ER they could have formed a very strong coalition with the Lib Dems with no need for any nationalists.

As far as democracy goes Lab and Con are as bad as each other. Infact Labour are worse because they should know better. More democracy can only mean bad news for the Tories.