Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Nah, there's no carp down here anymore - all those E. European migrants have eaten them.... :D

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

That's the point. People that live together share the same backgrounds and same concerns do vote for the same people. When the majority of people agree on something it makes the seat safe.

If you draw a big circle around south Manchester including Longsight, Fallowfield and Moss Side to the north and then Prestbury and Wilmslow to the south, who is going to win? The inner cities will always outnumber the suburbs and the countryside.

Or in the south, should Tower Hamlets and Chigwell really be run by the same MP?

---------- Post added at 15:34 ---------- Previous post was at 15:31 ----------

If your argument holds water then why not elect a group of MPs for "the south"?

The people in the cities have different concerns than people in the country and visa versa. Its ridiculous to think someone that lives and works several miles and social classes away from an electorate that will be able to represent them.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

But the boundaries are arbitrary, and they continue to be redrawn. It's not about any demographics of an area being met. We end up with cases like Oxford which, as a whole, voted Liberal Democrat but the boundaries are drawn in such a way that their vote was spread across the three constituencies and they won not a single seat. Constant gerrymandering by the leading parties is not democratic.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

This would need a version of PR which neither the Tories or Labour would consider. Why is it with huge swathes of countryside does Scotland not manage to have more than 1 Tory MP? Surely they have similar views as those in the shires :shrug:

Safe seats do not equal good government as MPs in safe seats can pretty much do as they please, knowing full well as long as their local political group keeps them as their candidate they have a job for life.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Boundaries aren't arbitary. They are split along geographic and demographic lines. That is as good as any as it takes into account class differences as well as others like employment, housing etc.

Because they are Scottish and not English? Scottish people tend not to vote Tory at all. Which is my point. Why enlarge the Scottish border towns to include Englist border towns?

Noone puts a gun to anyone's head when they vote. Seats are 'safe' because the majority of people share the same outlook and vote the same way each time. Why enforce different candidates on to an electorate that doesn't want them?

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Equalising the constituencies was actually a Tory idea, designed AFAIK to counter the current alleged bias in favour of Labour.

---------- Post added at 17:19 ---------- Previous post was at 17:08 ----------



Scottish vote share / MPs for the 2010 GE:

Tories - 16.7% / 1 MP (out of 59 seats)

Lib Dems - 18.9% / 11 MPs (out of 59 seats)


It's not that people in Scotland don't vote Tory, it's that they're more spread out, so FPTP means their votes don't particularly count.

Using PR for Westminster elections would actually help the Tories in Scotland, as they'd actually get more than just the one MP.

[The only reason the Tories have 16 MSPs in Holyrood is because elections for the Scottish Parliament use the Additional Member System (AMS)... if it used FPTP the Scottish Tories would be screwed, just are they are for Westminster]

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

They are safe because of blind party loyalty which bears no relation to the MPs ability. There are those in an area who might like to vote for a different person - even someone from the same political party. However because they have no control over who their local like minded political grouping choose as a candidate they are stuck with someone they don't want because the alternative political groups suit them even less.

We have local councillors who get voted in ONLY because they are Tories. Most people are unaware it is one of the other Tory councillors in the ward who actually does ALL the work.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Not noticed this being posted yet...

The Telegraph has obtained a late draft of The Queen's Speech...

Queen's speech revealed: David Cameron's 500 day programme to change Britain


Full list -

The Queen's Speech: Bill by Bill

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

They are?

Any kind of evidence for the demographic lines? As I understand it the boundaries are there in a loose attempt to create equal population constituencies according to the 2001 census. Demographic isn't likely to have anything to do with it, if it were we'd be attached to Richmond not Twickenham here.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

So Stuart what your saying is that, "your considerably richer than your cousin"...aka Harry Enfield.;)

http://www.richstudent.com/harry-enf...cher-than-you/

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

With the news coming in that there will be drastic cuts, NO JOB is safe now, I said this all along, this country is making drastic cutbacks, that they will tear this country to pieces, and the general public will suffer.

I bet all the parties will take there normal two months holiday, gallavanting around the world, at our expense.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

OK Arthur I'll bite. Imagine you are in charge of a small country in the North Atlantic.

It takes £100 billion a year in taxes and other income.
It spends £120 billion a year on benefits, defence, education, policing etc. etc.

How would YOU deal with the £20 billion shortfall?

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Can't we sell the Royal Family?

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Fergie tried that, even at 500k for Prince Andrew you wouldn't get anywhere near the amount needed. :D

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Although I should point out that *ANY* government would have to take measures such as the ones being taken. If they didn't, ultimately the country could go bankrupt, which is a lot worse.

Any government or party that tells you otherwise is lying.

It's also worth remembering that this was probably made worse by the previous administration.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Arthur, you are clearly showing that you don't have a clue when it comes to real issues.

The Deficit (Achieved thanks to the last Labour Government) is the REAL issue and you have not stated how we bring the massive Deficit down.

Do you really want the 'credit' status of Britain to suffer and reach the same as what happened in Greece? The new Government is acting now and rightly so, so stop whining about all the cuts because sorry, they are needed.

And about the 2 months holiday comment - Cameron and co will be working through September.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

By making drastic cuts, there will be more people unemployed, there will be cuts in vital services, and l mean front line services, they won't say where it will hit, this is what the news was about night, what they have to do, is start at the top, MPs salary has to be cut, drastically, they have to cut all these office staff at the parliament buildings, too many secretaries etc, when Cameron and Clegg go on there so called tours, will they travel 2nd or third class, No, they will travel first class, can you imagine them going Ryan or Easyjet, l doubt that.

Its not a case of cutting down on the workforce, its a question of making cutbacks at the top, I have worked at the Houses of Parliament, and they have top notch grub and booze, and the amount of waste is horrendous, IT has to start at the top first, People say l might l am moaning, but if it has to start, then it has to start from the 'horses mouth'

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

So stop making loads of people unemployed by making loads of people unemployed :spin:

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Arthur, back up your rant with facts, or would that be too difficult.

Show us where these front-line services are being cut, or are you, as usual, talking complete bolleaux.

There will be cuts somewhere, because we can't afford to keep spending what we don't have - do you spend more than you earn in your home?

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

The current cost of parliament is about £500 million a year.

The deficit last year was £156 billion (thats billion as in 156 thousand million)

So if you abolished the UK parliament completely you cover the deficit for about a day and half.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

You forget that Arthur doesn't count anyone not in the 'working classes' as being a part of the work force.

---------- Post added at 14:00 ---------- Previous post was at 13:54 ----------

The savings will need to be of the order of, I'll say this for you in words and numbers, Fifty Billion Pounds, £50,000,000,000.

The cost of Parliament is Five Hundred Million Pounds, £500,000,000.

So we totally abolish Parliament there's 1% of the reductions sorted, let's go after the other 99%. Oh wait there's no-one to do that we just abolished them.

MP's salaries are fine, I make more than an MP on base. There is absolutely no need for drastic cuts to their salaries.

Some services will be cut. This is fine. It's not the job of the government to look after most of us, we're grown ups or have grown ups to look after us and just need basic municipal services. If people stopped feeling entitled to having the government look after them in every way there would be more money for those who do actually need society to look after them and lower taxes for those who look after themselves.

Right now the government is spending over 50% of our entire national income, in some cities the government employs around half of the work force. This is no good for longer term prosperity and even worse for the pay packets of those in the private sector who pay for it.

Cuts are coming, there are three choices.

1) Accept them as being necessary.
2) Give valid reasons why they aren't necessary.
3) Complain that even though they are necessary they shouldn't happen - this one loosely translates to having a reliance on some aspect of those services, be it working in delivering the services or relying on them in some way.

No it won't be pleasant, no it's not something one would wish for, yes it will cause some unemployment, but yes it is absolutely required as without it this country will be in the kind of excrement that makes the 1970s look like easy street.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Arthur i am sorry but you really do need to get a grip on reality and not this whimsical world you live in. :rolleyes:

Oh and btw will you please produce evidence for your ranting, Why should we have to go and search for the info which you should have provided as part of your post, Or is this some magical way of cutting cost on your part that we should be aware of.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Unfortenatly its the grim truth of one of 2 scenarios.

1 - tory leadership where they trim down the public sector which will have massive economic impact in both lost jobs directly and indirectly when the private sector loses lucrative public sector contracts.
2 - labour leadership where we have bloated public sector that isnt sustainable but does create jobs and boosts the economy.

Given the size of the defecit I feel they have made a massive mistake ringfencing both international aid and the nhs, the nhs is the largest budget (which means the easiest to reduce) yet its protected.

One stark fact which the tories will never work out is the country cannot run solely on private investment, the need for profits is what will stop that. Which is why privatising things like benefit claimant handing will be a loser to the taxpayer as the companies doing the work need a profit, otherwise there is no point in them doing it, whilst if it was handled in house that need isnt there. An example, if the private sector managed to get every single incapacity benefit claimant into work (impossible but lets pretend they do) the taxpayer would need to pay a possible 16 billion to the private firms as payment for the work. Approx 8 years worth of incapacity benefit payments and the claimant only needs to stay in work for 6 months for that. So its just shifting money from claimants to shareholders, what the tories are about. Cameron made me feel sick when he claimed Freud to be an expert on welfare, hes an expert on making money not welfare.

To me its obvious why we have a growing defecit.

We have ended a decade of where wage inflation was significantly below real inflation, so costs to the government have risen and tax income has not risen with it due to the income that income tax is based on not rising enough. Add to that also the fact that successive governments have been addicted to lowering income tax to buy votes, they are throwing away income.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Arthur bless you you really do get yourself all worked up lol and clearly facts then become redundent in your world. Riddle me this Arthur who was it that managed to take a stable economy that was growing and turn it into this deficit ???. Who was it that went on a stupid increase of the public sector that was completely unsustainable in order to falsely manipulate figures ???. Who is now going to have to take all the brown stuff for sorting it all out as usual yes thats right the torys although maybe this time a little of the dirt will fall onto the lib dems as well.

Labour will do what it always does create a god awful mess leave it to others to sort out and then when it's all sorted and things are back on an evenish keel will come back telling us all how nasty said party/parties that sorted the mess out are and how we deserve more. Like complete brain dead monkeys the majority will then vote them in as being pampered sounds good and the cycle starts all over again.

Yes this is going to be a painful few years for UK plc and sadly it has to happen and nobody who got voted in could have done anything but what is going to be done and never was going to be able too despite what a red tinged party was promising when it wanted us to vote them back in. Incapacity benefit can be reduced easily you simply get off all the people that were put on it under labour for no reason other then making unemployment figures look better about a million of them.

But none of that is any good unless said people have a job to go to and private sector jobs are better then public jobs whihc as we have seen have drained the country for the last decade. Are some front line services going to be cut i don't know for sure but i would guess some will have to be and again there is no choice.

As for your "lets cut mp's salarys" yeah another gem of an idea from the world of Arthur lets put them all on minimum wage and make the job completely unappealing to the people with the experience and knowledge needed to run decent government we can then truly vote in chimps and ride that train all the way down to a level we can never get back from. Like it or not Arthur sometimes you have to pay decent money to get decent people or at the very least stand a chance of getting decent people.

Your an analogue tv in a digital era Arthur and the time for class warriors like you has thankfully gone and most of us can see things clear enough to disregard old battle lines and move onto modern thinking and solutions. Come on Arthur join the majority of us in this century it's a lot better then you think :).

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

I think the LibDem Deputy Chancellor put it best - Guardian

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

That has got to be one of the best posts of today :clap:

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Guardian/ICM poll: voters back coalition, but Lib Dem support dips

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

And just in case anyone had any remaining doubts that labour didn't know just how bad things were.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...he-green-room/

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

I don't know about any of this. On the one hand, don't the Tories have a majority, slimmer than a supermodel though it is?

On the other hand, it's interesting how quickly opposing parties jumped into bed with each other, isn't it? Ostensibly their ideals and principles (don't laugh, I'm not being sarcastic...yet) are incompatible, so the whole coalition idea seems a bit hypocritical.

I still think Harold Saxon, a.k.a. the Master, had the right idea. He knew what to do with people who would so readily abandon their principles and jump on the band wagon: he gassed 'em all!

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

I don't think it's a matter of abandoning principles. Compromise yes, abandoning no. If you're going to work together there will have to be some give and take, and working together was the best option given the outcome of the election. The Tories don't have an outright majority by themselves. Together with the Lib Dems they do. Personally, I like the compromise. The most extreme policies of both parties are shelved, and the result is fairly centrist which I think is good for the long term.

Plus, over 60% of the voters voted for one of the parties in power. That's got to be a good thing.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Silly you, you missed something from the quote, here, let me help:

There, that's better, isn't it.

---------- Post added at 14:14 ---------- Previous post was at 14:12 ----------

No, the Tories don't have a majority, they simply have more seats than any of the other parties. That is why they had to form a coalition with another party.

There's still time. ;)

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Are you seriously suggesting that what Toby Young is reporting is just plain untruth?

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Are you seriously suggesting that you would blindly believe him, even when he admits it is nothing more than rumour?

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

I think it's you that needs to re-read the article.

Here is the only qualification that he gives to the material he then goes on to discuss:

The material he then imparts we can take to be genuine. It was not reported as news at the time because nobody would go on the record to confirm it. This is not surprising; the BBC's rules on reporting single-source or anonymous, uncorroborated sources is well known, especially post-Hutton.

If you are allowing the fact that he chose to use the word 'gossip' in the next sentence to blind you to this, then so far as I can see you are either wilfully doing so, or else you have serious difficulty with some of the subtleties of English communication. Perhaps you could say which.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Oh come on. I really don't find it credible that even you believe that. Unnamed sources..., insiders say..., word on the street...., come on, really.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

It seems to me that some folks around here have palpable double standards when it comes to which 'rumours' they tend to believe and the difference between fact and conjecture.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Yes, really. The thing is, to take the position you have chosen to take, you need to ignore Toby Young's entire opening paragraph. In it, he doesn't simply claim anything is 'the word on the street' - he explains exactly where the news comes from, and exactly why it wasn't reported at the time. In fact, the only thing he hasn't done is name the person who gave him the information.

And if you truly think there is something intrinsically suspicious or untrustworthy about a journalist who doesn't name his source ... well, Woodward and Bernstein would be very disappointed in you.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

The dissolution Honours list - Politicshome

Well known names on it include

John Prescott
Michael Howard
Floella Benjamin
Paul Boateng
Sue Nye (as in - "I blame Sue")
John Gummer
Phil Willis
Des Brown
John Hutton
John Reid
Ian Paisley
Sir Ian Blair

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Go, Floella!

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

The same John Prescott who repeatedly said he would refuse a peerage?

A politician whose morals last as long as it takes for something to be waved in front of his nose. That's a rarity...

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

What is so bad about his morals, why are they so different?

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

To me Prescott is the quintessential Champagne Socialist.

In other news David Laws has been caught with his fingers well and truly in the till. Nice actions to try and make up but a tad too late I feel.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

David Laws has now resigned.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Now being said that Danny Alexander to take up his role.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

I wonder how many more of these the ToryGraph has squirreled away, just waiting to de-rail a coalition they don't agree with?

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Indeed. Rather convenient timing, wasn't it.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Presumably he hasn't refused the peerage..

A little hypocritical considering he said he would.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Well if he does accept it'd be typical of him and many of his New Labour colleagues - past and present.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Which kind of begs the question, how many are they not telling us about? How much will they never tell us?

---------- Post added at 22:58 ---------- Previous post was at 22:57 ----------

A little self-serving perhaps, but immoral? I don't think so.

---------- Post added at 23:00 ---------- Previous post was at 22:58 ----------

How many more excuses to we need for MPs fiddling their expenses. This forum was the last place I would have expected to read support for a MP caught flipping and renting.

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

you said it was labour's fault and it wasnt!

Re: [Update] The Liberal-Conservative Coalition
 

isnt telegraph one of those papers opposing the capital gains tax increase?

so what better way to remove some lib dems influence in the treasury.