Do we no longer live in a democracy?

Before the Royal Colleges came out against the reforms, Cameron was saying that 'the support of these organisations was critical to the success of the reforms'. Now that they actively oppose them, he says they are 'unions acting in the interests of their members'.

But they're not unions.

"A lot of people feel the same way and would never vote for a party than the one that they have always voted for. So our democracy is effectively determined by a few floating voters who are willing to change their minds."

I have voted for 3 different parties. None of those 3 is Conservative. I live in a 3-way marginal, that is very close every election.

scaryteacher I had spotted

Well I never have voted Conservative, never will.

I disagree that the democracy comes in 'not voting for them again'. An elected party has a mandate to implement their manifesto. It's not legally binding, but that is the premise of our democracy. It does not have a mandate to do the opposite to what it said in its manifesto.

And Cogito - I come back to the promises on the NHS. They were promises they NEVER HAD ANY INTENTION of keeping - they were planning the opposite. And therefore it's not just a promise they found themselves unable to keep, it was a downright lie.

The interesting thing about the university fee pledge is that, they say they cannot honour it because they didn't win the election outright.

But given that the pledge was to 'vote against any rise in tuition fees' - that could ONLY be applicable in the event of them not winning the election outright - because presumably they weren't planning a LibDem government to introduce a rise in tuition fees, and then vote against themselves! So, they were promising to oppose a rise in tuition fees proposed by the government, whoever they were.

They probably shouldn't have made the pledge. But they have made themselves unelectable, and the opinion polls are unforgiving and unrelentingly bad.

(Sorry if that sounded a dumb question, obviously the thread is very political! But I did put it in AIBU specifically, because I wanted to have a lively debate about it, as we have done, thanks all! - and politics is often a lot quieter than AIBU!!!!).

Rowanmumsnet - that's fine, but wondered why?

Going back to George Osborne, I do worry greatly that he has his head in the sand about the economy - looking at other countries, the US is starting to turn the corner, having had more of a fiscal stimulus, the country that went down the austerity route bigtime was ........Ireland. And I don't think anyone would say that Ireland was a great example to follow. Though Osborne did describe the economy there as 'an Irish Miracle that is a shining example of the art of the possible'. And he desired that it should be emulated here. And is now following the Irish plan of austerity.

Like I say, I don't think we should go full steam ahead with a full-on Keynsian plan. But perhaps some heads from all sides of the political debate would come up with a more balanced plan of action.

mingofmongo!

Honestly, there was so much I didn't like about the last Labour government, but the thread is about the government we have, and how we've got here I guess - in terms of whether it is democratic or not. I don't think it was particularly democratic that we wound up with Gordon Brown as PM, with no election, even amongst Labour MPs - but I don't think it would be right for just one party to choose a PM. Similarly John Major when he took over from Margaret Thatcher (though he did of course subsequently win an election).

But I do feel this coalition is undemocratic, and so I guess a lot of the argument is going to be against it. And the business of defending Labour - I don't defend them for many things, but I think it is disingenuous when the Tories criticise Labour's spending 'in the good times' because they weren't opposing it, and were promising to match it and indeed raise it'. And I hate it when people try and change history to make themselves look better.

And wrt to filling a black hole - it is tough, I know! But don't you ever feel that Osborne has his head in the sand - he's got his 'idea' of how you 'fix' the economy - but his idea is not bearing the fruit he promised - growth in every quarter, falling unemployment, the private sector stepping in to fill the gaps - and he really ought to have the humility to at least LOOK at some other steps. As lots have said, getting the tax owed by the multi-nationals and the super-rich might be a start. Cutting tax at the bottom, as that goes straight back into the economy, whereas cutting tax for the rich goes offshore or into trust funds/bank accounts etc.

And it isn't easy at all, but if we don't get any growth in the economy (and don't forget it has flatlined for a year now, and shrank last quarter), then that black hole isn't filled, it gets bigger. He is already borrowing 150billion MORE than he forecast he would....

I don't think Ed Balls has the answer. But I do think that a 3-party coalition with major players from all parties, in the proportions they were elected, in this extraordinary economic time, might have been a better and more democratic solution. And it might, although it doesn't seem intuitive, have provided a better opposition - across the table in the treasury instead of soundbites in the Commons. This is, I think, what the LibDems were thinking when they went into coalition, but they then rolled over on some of their key issues, which lost them credibility.

So that would be my 'democratic' solution - in the absence of an outright majority, the coalition government is made up of members of all parties above a set size, in the proportions they were elected. Backbenchers are free from the whips to oppose as they see fit, and in the key area of the Treasury, there is a key person from each of the 3 parties. And it should be for a short fixed term.

They do it in wars - why not in economically unprecedented times?

scary - November 2008 was after Lehman brothers collapse, and really once we were into that economic downturn, how you get out of it is much more complicated than 'not spending too much' - the Labour government took a decision to borrow in order to limit unemployment and to limit as far as possible the depth of the recession. The rights and wrongs of that are absolutely debatable - they may have been right, they may have been catastrophically wrong.

But the Tories are perpetuating the myth that BEFORE that point they were warning about Labour spending too much - they would call it spending, others would call it investing. Again, this is debatable, they probably should have been saving money for a rainy day. BUT the Tories CANNOT say they warned about it.

This thread wasn't meant to be party political actually, and not even meant to be about moral high ground. I still maintain that it is wrong to 'buy votes' from the electorate on the basis of absolute lies - and that is what their NHS agenda is, along with the Lib Dem uni fees agenda. Those are the two big lies. VAT, child benefit, EMA - those were lies too, but perhaps could be argued by 'finding out what the situation was' (though the child benefit cut is ill-thought-out and unfair, the EMA is not necessarily a good cut, and everybody KNEW It was a lie about VAT).

But to say 'we will put a stop to any more top-down reorganisation of the NHS', when you have been working for a significant period of time on the biggest top-down reorganisation in its history, and know you will bring this in as soon as you get power, and to have said this because you KNEW the electorate would never vote you in if they got wind of it, is lying and deception.

Similarly with the LibDems - maybe they shouldn't have made that pledge. But they won several university seats on the back of the PERSONAL pledge that each made, promising to VOTE AGAINST any rise in tuition fees. And that is the reason why after the next election it is highly likely that the LibDems will be just about wiped out, and so we will be reduced to a 2-party system. At least with the LibDems, I think they BELIEVED they would vote against it at the time, even if they couldn't follow through on their promise, whereas the Tories knew full well they were spinning a lie.

It might interest you to know that I didn't vote Labour at the last election - though that is probably where my natural politics are - because I thought they had messed up too badly, and needed time out of office. I still cried at the sight of Cameron and Clegg heading into Downing Street - don't know who I thought SHOULD run the country, but I think what we have is not good - one party abandoning its principles for power, another forcing through an agenda that no-one had an opportunity to vote on.