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??

Agreed vesela. I think the Lib Dems would be well advised not to let PR be a sticking point just now. Make a coalition work and they will make their point in spades. Let the talks break down over the issue of PR and they damage the cause straight away.

Hope you're listening Lib Dem HQ!

Vesela, the Citizens UK speech focused on his commitment to equality and to improving conditions for the low paid, something he's fought for since student days. To me that's integrity, as is the fact that he made the unsung heroes of mass movements the focus of his speech rather than himself. I can't remember when I last heard a speech like that from a British politician.

The problem is Labour's been in power for 13 years. If he cared that much he'd have done it already.

Minimum wage, Gaelic. He has done it already. And if that's state intervention then I'll vote for it every time.

The type of state intervention I'm talking about is the constant social engineering and endless Govt targets.

Clearly the minimum wage isn't nearly enough if that's the speech I'm thinking of (can't watching YouTube on my connection). Did he really only just realise when that young girl talked about her mum?

Actually, minimum wage isn't an intervention into individual lives anyway - it's regulation of business.

I think the two are fairly different.

No, the minimum wage is not enough but it's a step in the right direction, and one that Labour met alot ofresistance to. I presume that you didn't support it so don't understand why, when it's held up as an example of Labour achievement you claim that it's not enough. Obviously the example of that little girl is heartbreaking but under the Tories she wouldn't even have had the safety net of the minimum wage. Labour don't claim to have eradicated poverty but at least it's part of their agenda.

thetoriesaretoast - to me that's conviction, and I've heard quite a few speeches like it from British politicians. I don't think conviction is in short supply.

Integrity is not lying about your opponents' policies - things like that. Brown fails on that count.

I'll start to worry about him lying about Tory policies (which they are capable of doing all by themselves incidentally) the day the Tories support a compassionate policy like the minimum wage.

Don't presume anything about my political beliefs please. And yes, GB fails every test of integrity there is - this election campagin was a classic example. Today's announcement, impeccably timed to scupper the Tory/Lib Dem talks was another.