so, why is a con-lib thing so bad??

[thisisyesterday]

i voted lib dem, but in all honesty politics is not my strong point, though i am making an effort!!

now, i've heard a lot of people saying they'll never vote LD again if they go in with the tories, which just seems strange to me

I mean, I voted hoping that LD would win more seats and have more influence. I never thought they would win, and I can't believe other people did either.....

so surely it was always going to end with either a lab/con govt but just more seats for the libs? OR, a coalition of some kind

so.... why is a lib/con team worse than a lib/lab team?
the way I see it if you end with a coalition it's always going to be with a party you don't agree with surely?
and it's better to have a con/lib govt than a purely con govt because that way hopefully the lib dems can have MORE influence over things... hence all the talks

a friend of mine said something along the lines of "they're siding with the tories just so that they can get into power..." well duh! isn't that the aim of any political party? to get into power? and by making a good deal with another party and being able to influence things more than you would otherwise, why is that so bad??

Fed up of all this reverse snobery. Why are people still going on about the working class and the 'rich'.
We are ALL richer than in the 1980s. That was the past, lets get on with the future and if that means LIB-Con, then so be it.

Not bad imo, i voted conservative for a change of government!

Eh? Who is going on about the working class and the rich?

The problem with a Con-Lib coalition is that one of the central planks of the LibDem manifesto is electoral reform. And the Conservatives don't want this. It's been part of the LidDem 'philosophy' for years and years and years.

So if Nick Clegg gets into bed with the Tories, without a commitment to electoral reform, then he is simply prostituting himself. Going for power at any cost, in other words.

But worse, the suspicion is that Dave is only promising a sniff at electoral reform. He's promised a committee to review it.

That's why so many LibDems are really angry about the prospect of a ConLib coalition - one of their main 'planks' could be seriously compromised in the name of government.

Most LibDem policies are closer to Labour's than to the Tories, so if they side with the Tories it is more likely to amount to a betrayal of their membership. Labour and LibDem are both centre-left progressive parties, while the Tories are undeniably on the right. If you think back 150 years, it was a two-party system of Libs and Tories - they are traditional enemies.

hmm ok, i do get the political reform thing, am hoping clegg will be able to get them to agree to that... but if not what would be a better solution then among the options?

another election immediately?
a labour/lib dem coalition (would that result in electoral reform?)
soemthing else???

Historically Lib Dem and Labour have been linked. Labour after all came out of the Liberal party.

If Clegg forms a coalition with Cameron that does not include a referendum for electoral reform he will have sold out the most fundamental Lib Dem policy for three seats in Cameron's cabinet. He will lose a lot of Lib Dem support doing that.

There is no easy solution - it's an impossible situation and I shouldn't think Clegg's getting much sleep. It looks as if Labour will agree to a referendum on electoral reform, and then we decide effectively. But electoral reform isn't the happy-ever-after - the kind if situation we're seeing now will probably become more common after reform, not less.

if they do form a coalition, will that be it until the next general election? or will there still be one sooner?

I see no similarity between the Labout and Lib Dem parties. Their cultures are poles apart. As were their view on electoral reform until GB suddenly realised he might have to move out of Downing Street. I see much more potential for agreement between the Lib Dems and moderate Conservatives. Plus, the thought of Labour being a progressive party is laughable.

It will be until it all implodes. I doubt this government, whatever form it takes, will last more than a year.

Gaelic, I have absolutely no idea what you mean by their 'cultures'. And are you telling me the Tories are progressive? You might like to check the dictionary definition of conservative.

hmmm i think i am understanding so far

if clegg refuses and no deal is done what then? labour stay in power? indefinitely? or would they be forced to call another GE?

i reckon they should have another one anyway, so all those people can vote who missed out!

The Labour government for the past decade or so has been all about authoritarianism and state control of the individual. Not much progressive about that is there?

I assume Con will form a minority government and look for support on an issue by issue basis. I don't think there is anyway that Lab could stay in power unless they got support of the DUP, SNP and Plaid Cymru. All pretty difficult bedfellows.A

If no deal is done, the Tories can try to form a minority govt, which has certainly happened before. But they have to be able to get their Queen's speech voted through, and they will find it very hard to push through legislation. Nick Robinson at the BBC has suggested that the Libs will avoid an actual coalition, so they're not tainted by association with the Tories, but will not oppose the Queen's speech etc, in order to get some concessions. I'm not convinced by this, as I think they need to go all out for electoral reform. It's now or never really.

oh blimey it's more complicated than i thought!

Gaelic, which policies do you consider to be authoritarian? And what DO you mean by Labour/LibDem cultures being different? That one lot go to state schools and the other to private? That one likes music hall and the other opera??

Thisisyesterday, yes, it's a real head spinner!

Ooh let's see. Government databases storing invasive personal details about people and their children. Locking people up without charge for months on end. ID cards. Endless surveillance by the state for dubious purposes. The list is pretty much endless. It all adds up to the continuous erosion of individual freedoms. In any other country these kinds of policies would be seen as very very dangerous. In this country - because it's our loveable, fluffy Labour party - people seem to think it's OK. It isn't OK, it's bloody frightening.

The Lib Dems are against all this unnecessary state control and in favour of freedom and democracy. Hence the parties' cultures are poles apart.

Nick Clegg's a Westminster school old boy isn't he? This is a private school. I voted conservatives, I have never voted Labour but have had to endure their policies for the last x amount of years. You can't please everyone, the majority have said they want a Conserative government now, not a Labour one, it's only because of the shite way our government works which is causing the problems.

I agree with gaelicsheep.

Also, all these Lib Dem supporters who are so angst ridden about a tory/lib pact, what DO they think would be likely to happen under STV? Lots and lots of deals like the one going on at the moment.

Only 36% have said they want a Conservative government. Not a majority at all!

Less than 36% wanted a Labour government in 2005. I don't recall much angst in the Labour camp about their own lack of mandate back then.

It's not a majority as in enough to run the country but it's more then any other party IYSWIM.

more than the rest got though