UK Election Poll

[OzzyKP]

ozzy, the thing is, it's an opening gambit.the tory leader is not going to give the liberals everything they want, and certainly not straight away. what he has done though is said that he wants to do a deal, outlined some areas where they agree, told them that he won't compromise on certain issues (europe, immigration and defence (which i guess means trident)) and said that they can discuss the rest.

it's a fairly brave (or fairly cynical, depending on your viewpoint) thing to do, considering the attitude of much of his own party towards doing a deal with the lib dems.

There is a big difference between giving them everything they want and nothing they want. Cameron's statement didn't list a single compromise the Tories would make.


Also, much of the electoral reform conversation seems to be only about proportional representation. There are other options like referendum, initiative, recall, instant run-off voting (aka alternative voting), etc. I think instant run-off would suit the Liberals very well and could, perhaps, be a nice compromise if Cameron won't do PR.

[OzzyKP]

for me personally, a tory-liberal government with a deal on electoral reform (or at least a referendum on it) would be the ideal outcome. so maybe i am a little biased.

[C0ckney]

that's fair enough ozzy. my question wasn't really directed at you because you're not british and you'd already made clear that you supported a liberal-tory coalition.

[MOBIUS]

well you're entitled to your view. i don't share it.

It's not a view, it's fact. Name me one compromise made by Cameron to the Lib Dems in his speech. The thing on electoral reform is nothing of the sort, he just wants to make first past the post 'fairer' for the Tories (Labour benefits most under the current arrangement), he does not mention PR at all...

Also, Blair made the same offer (but about a form of PR) in 1997 and that got quietly shelved by Labour.

i believe that cameron sees that the only prospect of governing without having another general election within a year is doing a deal with the liberals. the exact terms of that deal are obviously not going to become clear for a little while at least. it may be coalition or a looser arrangement. it may not happen at all.

Indeed, but he has to put proper electoral reform on the table, because that is the #1 thing that came out of this election. But he won't because he knows it is electoral suicide for the tories, so it won't happen.

for me personally, a tory-liberal government with a deal on electoral reform (or at least a referendum on it) would be the ideal outcome. so maybe i am a little biased.

There is a lot of common ground between the two parties and I am no more ideologically against the tories than labour. I just don't thing the tories will compromise, whereas I know labour would bend over backwards to compromise. Plus I think that Cameron and most of his team are total c*nts.

[Krill]

i have a question for our committed lib dems. how do you square the circle of supporting a deal with a labour party, which has shat all over our civil liberties for 13 years?

Relatively easily. They want 2 things that are sticking point, electoral reform and a budget that they like. The former Labour has already said they will rush through, so the question is can they get the budget, an the electoral reform then crash the parliament?

The question is what can the Tories do to equal this Electoral reform promise, or can they get the rest of the smaller parties?

I don't think the past **** matters right now, we can pick it up in the next parliament after LD has thrown the kitchen sink at getting electoral reform.

Really, the budget is important, but if Lib/Lab offer the Tories what they want in that, how the hell would happen if the Tories voted against the budget? It is one budget, provided they get the electoral reform, the whole game changes in the next 6 months.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

If anyone here remembers Iain Lindley, he came a creditable second place in what is far from being a traditional Tory seat.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I saw that on Facebook... an 8% point swing was it? Great job for Iain

[Krill]

EoF, nice job mate pity we couldn't get an MP on our board...

[Ben Kenobi]

I said that about 4 hours ago. It's the implications.

Well it's 315/316.

And MikeH, with 52 percent of the voters voting Lib Dem/Labour, that means 48 voted for a smaller party or conservative.

So even PR would give you about the same as you got in the election. PR would be a disaster from the standpoint of governance.

If they have a Lib Dem/Conservative coalition, the Pound is going to freefall if PR is in the deal. If the Conservatives can get enough votes for their budget you folks should be ok.

[Ben Kenobi]

offer the Tories what they want in that, how the hell would happen if the Tories voted against the budget? It is one budget, provided they get the electoral reform, the whole game changes in the next 6 months.

It's a great strategy. **** on the voters and rig the system so you still win. Hey Krill, you folks lost, get over it and let Cameron govern.

[MikeH]

i have a question for our committed lib dems. how do you square the circle of supporting a deal with a labour party, which has shat all over our civil liberties for 13 years?

Not much different to the Tories ****ting all over our civil liberties for the preceding years. Remember Michael Howard as Home Secretary?

BTW It's a good question, this was the major reason I didn't tactically vote Labour.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cameron's statement didn't list a single compromise the Tories would make.

That's what happens when you win.

What's the worst thing that happens for Cameron? Everyone votes against his budget? Great, another election and he'll win even more seats.

[MikeH]

Well it's 315/316.

And MikeH, with 52 percent of the voters voting Lib Dem/Labour, that means 48 voted for a smaller party or conservative.

Are you claiming 48 is more than 52?

So even PR would give you about the same as you got in the election. PR would be a disaster from the standpoint of governance.

"You"? Me in this case being a Lib Dem voter. PR would give us about 150 seats instead of 57. I don't consider nearly triple to be "about the same".

[Ben Kenobi]

In terms of a Lib Dem/Labour coalition, you would still have about the same number of seats that you have now.

Of course it benefits Lib Dem but at the cost to Labour, which doesn't help you from a standpoint of governance. It also means that you'd be perpetually confined to that share of the electorate. With FPTP if Labour goes down, you would have a shot at governing again.

Are you claiming 48 is more than 52?

No, but you seem to think the fact that those 'smaller voters' are irrelevant. This includes the BNP and UKIP folks who didn't earn a seat and still commanded about 10 percent of the electorate.

[MikeH]

Huh? No-one would ever vote for a different party in a different election?