Metropol

barcode wrote:I still dont understand, why are you not happy with the lib dem demanding only about one policy, which included protest, before there entry a coalition?

Most people only want one thing in this coalition, and thats PR, I cant see how the lib dem could have any say in Europe,immigration even defence, Like hell there would have a chance! there may have a chance on other policies like education, health, tax reform. I never show Nick clegg coming out with a beggars bowl to David, It was david who is whoooing nick. With PR lib dems would STILL have the fewest number of seat out of the big three parties.

That is not the biggest issue affecting this country at the moment, the priority should be fixing the economy.

I've not noticed any significant enthusiasm in the Labour ranks for PR prior to the outcome of this election, in fact it's been suggested that many Labour back benchers have a preference for the FPTP system. And indeed had the outcome on Thursday delivered Labour a Tony Blair style landslide it's unlikely we'd be hearing anything about it now.

marksi wrote:You can't object to a voting system because it might result in a result you personally don't agree with.

I've explained exactly why I don't agree with it and that is not the reason.

Hymagumba wrote: So you believe the only way to deal with an offender is to throw them into jail and throw away the key? Note how well that works in the US. Their manefesto is that they will avoid prison sentences under six months when necessary, therefore making prison the place for more serious offenders with long term sentences. Currently, the prisons - as we so often hear - are rather full, and a large number of these are people who are in there because of some of the stupid offenses that labour have dreamed up over the last decade and shoved a prison term on to. This is not the best use of prison, and its damn expensive.

There are numerous articles, which I can't be bothered to find, that explain how sticking the type of stupid kid who does petty crime into prison often makes them worse when they come out. They end up associating with worse people and it makes them more likely to reoffend. Therefore giving them a community sentence, which lets not forget is meant to be humiliating, is not only more useful to the community (cleaning graffiti etc) but is less likely to get them mixed up with even more nefarious types.

What exactly is the problem with this? It does not imply that if I can kill someone and get away with it. It suggests that short term sentences are useless.

Your argument is kind of based on the assumption that all 'petty' offenders are young and naive and therefore have an excuse (not to say that I think it's an excuse). I'd like to see figures that show what proportion of offenders currently receiving six-month prison sentences are under 21 and what proportion are mature adults who know what they are doing?

Prison is more of a deterrent than community service. A person might think twice about pick-pocketing, for example, if they know they will go to prison if caught. The risk/reward balance changes when the prospect of prison is replaced with 20 hours of community service. Therefore they are more likely to chance it, no?

I'm not really old enough to remember of course but from what I know, the prospect of your parents being deeply ashamed of you if you broke the law was enough to deter crime effectively. Pity most parents don't seem to care less what their offspring do now. A lot of them positively encourage it.

Hymagumba wrote:When did he state that exactly? Is this the Nazi Slur article again?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/nov/19/eu.germany

"All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still. A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off. I wish Mr Puhle and Mr Sawartzki well. We need to be put back in our place."

Hymagumba wrote:I'm not one of these people who comes out with the "we need to ask the Americans" line because I don't think its accurate, however given that any attack on our soil would more likely be a "dirty bomb" carried by a person rather than a missle from a govt, is it really useful? And what good would the thing do afterwards exactly bar a nasty style of revenge?

Can we please stop this nonsense about a 'dirty bomb'. It's as if we're daring them to do it.

Do you remember immediately after September the 11th everyone started going on about a possible attack on the London Underground being the most likely form of attack in the UK?

Lo and behold, what happened?

I didn't say it would happen, just that it was more likely than a state firing one at us. So I'll ask again, why should we have (and for that matter replace) nuclear weapons?

Will reply to prison/europe bit later.

Chie wrote:I know Will. Okay, I'll try and put it another way.

28% of Labour voters plus 23% of Lib Dem voters equals 51%, that's right.

23% of Lib Dem voters plus 36% of Conservative voters equals 59%.

The second combination represents the wishes of more voters than the first one. That means it's fairer, more equal. Yet Lib Dem supporters are literally taking to the streets at the prospect of such a coalition - contradicting their own principles regarding fair representation. Clear as day, they want the combination that represents the fewest voters. It's barmy.

I'm against the proposed set-up of PR because it would surely result in a coalition of the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party in perpetuity. I don't think it's very fair when you've got a massive 36% sitting there unable to participate in the direct governing of the country because a party that received a comparatively tiny 23% of the vote just so happens to agree with another smaller party more.

Then there's the issue of backroom deals, that I don't like. As I said above, what's the point when they have absolutely no idea which policy areas the majority of the electorate prefers out of the two parties? Say 80% of voters prefer Labour's health policy over the Liberal Democrats' and the coalition goes and appoints a Lib Dem as Secretary of State for Health without knowing - how is that in any way fair? If you're going to have a 'fair' electoral system that it has to be thorough. Backroom deals make a mockery of the whole concept.

Having said that, I hope the Lib Dems can come to some agreement with the Conservatives. If it happens then it is to be seen as an achievement, in my opinion. The coalition will represent the values of left and right, working together for the good of the country at a time when, to be honest, we need tough measures as well as a good balance of care and empathy, provided by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats respectively. That's more beneficial than 100% of either, isn't it?

So you think the Lib Dems/the third party should just be handed bound and gagged to the party with the most seats?!

What on earth would be the point in that?

23% is not insignificant, it represents almost a quarter of the electorate. If we had a system which didnt discriminate so much against emerging parties, this figure would doubtless be significantly more.

The fact is, the Liberal Democrats simply have more in common with Labour, and Labour are prepared to give the Lib Dems more. If the Conservatives can offer what the Lib Dems want (read:PR), fair enough - but they're not going to, and why should the Lib Dems waste their chance to make things fairer (and better for them) as they've promised for three decades.

Not only would a Conservative coalition offer less than a Labour coalition, but you have the matter of the party's membership base and more importantly the everyday voters who feel a lot more affinity for Labour - a good number of them would doubtless turn their back on the party.

Luckily, the LD's are DEMOCRATIC, so Clegg can't really make an unpopular decision

I bet there get less than 23% at the next election if it takes place next year and beyond

WillPS wrote:So you think the Lib Dems/the third party should just be handed bound and gagged to the party with the most seats?!

What on earth would be the point in that?

Yes, in the present situation as it stands, I do. Nick Clegg said for months that the party with the most votes and seats would have the clearest mandate to govern. Nobody is forcing him to coalesce with the Conservatives you know - he's sticking to his principles. He understands that a government which represents the wishes of 59% of the electorate is fairer than one that represents only 51%. Why can't you understand this?

Ideally we'd have the two largest parties working together to represent an even greater percentage of the electorate, but unfortunately it will never happen because Labour hates the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democrats don't hate anyone. Nor do the Conservatives, really.

WillPS wrote:23% is not insignificant, it represents almost a quarter of the electorate. If we had a system which didnt discriminate so much against emerging parties, this figure would doubtless be significantly more.

I don't follow? If there were more parties (as if we actually need any more, for goodness sake) the Liberal Democrats would get a smaller percentage of the vote, not significantly more.

WillPS wrote:The fact is, the Liberal Democrats simply have more in common with Labour, and Labour are prepared to give the Lib Dems more. If the Conservatives can offer what the Lib Dems want (read:PR), fair enough - but they're not going to, and why should the Lib Dems waste their chance to make things fairer (and better for them) as they've promised for three decades.

Because there are much more pressing issues that need to be addressed at the moment. PR can wait. Halving the budget deficit in the next four years, which is a legal requirement by the way, cannot.

WillPS wrote:Luckily, the LD's are DEMOCRATIC, so Clegg can't really make an unpopular decision

No! He can't really side with Labour and create a coalition that represents the wishes of 51% of the electorate when he knows perfectly well he can create one that represents 59% after banging on about fairness and representation all these years, whether the latter option is popular or not.

Chie wrote:Ideally we'd have the two largest parties working together to represent an even greater percentage of the electorate, but unfortunately it will never happen because Labour hates the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democrats don't hate anyone. Nor do the Conservatives, really.

Is this the same Conservatives who've been banging on for months that a vote for Lib Dem is a vote for Labour, and if there's a hung parliament the four horsemen of the apocalypse will take residence in number 10 until all the first born sons & daughters have been sacrificed to the great god Nick Griffin, the EU has stamped out the pound and replaced it with the deutsch-mark, terrorists have blown all our grannies up and the banks have kicked everyone out of their houses?

Not once have I heard Cameron go "I want to work with you Gordon, but I can't while you don't like me. Like me Gordon! Like me! I want to be friends!".

Chie wrote:
WillPS wrote:So you think the Lib Dems/the third party should just be handed bound and gagged to the party with the most seats?!

What on earth would be the point in that?
Yes, in the present situation as it stands, I do. Nick Clegg said for months that the party with the most votes and seats would have the clearest mandate to govern. Nobody is forcing him to coalesce with the Conservatives you know - he's sticking to his principles. He understands that a government which represents the wishes of 59% of the electorate is fairer than one that represents only 51%. Why can't you understand this?

Ideally we'd have the two largest parties working together to represent an even greater percentage of the electorate, but unfortunately it will never happen because Labour hates the Conservatives.

The Liberal Democrats don't hate anyone. Nor do the Conservatives, really.

Because the one which offers 8% less of the electorate (but still over half, well over any majority the Conservatives have ever had) is a more workable relationship in terms of policy and ideology. There's bugger all point in forming a coalition with a party which is not willing to compromise on important issues with you (and to the Lib Dems, reform is Important with a capital I); the relationship is bad from the offset and so could only lead to a breakdown and dissolution.

As a former party member/campaigner for the Liberal Youth, I can assure you there is plenty of derision for the Torys.

Chie wrote:
WillPS wrote:23% is not insignificant, it represents almost a quarter of the electorate. If we had a system which didnt discriminate so much against emerging parties, this figure would doubtless be significantly more.
I don't follow? If there were more parties (as if we actually need any more, for goodness sake) the Liberal Democrats would get a smaller percentage of the vote, not significantly more.

Oh come on! For as long as I can remember both parties have warned against 'wasting your vote' - it's happened since the 80s as an attempt to stamp out the rise of the Alliance and now the LibDems. If PR were to exist, this argument would be absolutely null and void. Additionally, one would be able to vote for more than one individual - I'm quite sure this would serve the LDs well.

Chie wrote:
WillPS wrote:The fact is, the Liberal Democrats simply have more in common with Labour, and Labour are prepared to give the Lib Dems more. If the Conservatives can offer what the Lib Dems want (read:PR), fair enough - but they're not going to, and why should the Lib Dems waste their chance to make things fairer (and better for them) as they've promised for three decades.
Because there are much more pressing issues that need to be addressed at the moment. PR can wait. Halving the budget deficit in the next four years, which is a legal requirement by the way, cannot.

No, it cant. If there is no clear timetable laid out for this parliament, it simply will not happen as it will never be within the controlling government's interest to implement it.

Chie wrote:
WillPS wrote:Luckily, the LD's are DEMOCRATIC, so Clegg can't really make an unpopular decision
No! He can't really side with Labour and create a coalition that represents the wishes of 51% of the electorate when he knows perfectly well he can create one that represents 59% after banging on about fairness and representation all these years, whether the latter option is popular or not.

He did not promise to accept a deal from the Conservatives, only to enter in to negotiations with them first.

Frankly, the whole exercise is a waste of time. The Conservatives are stubborn to the core.

As I said before, 51% is still significantly more of the electorate than the Conservatives alone have ever served.

LABOUR is stubborn to the core, the petulant brats. You'd never see them trying to get along like the other two parties are. They'd be all 'oh but my mummy says I shouldn't hang around with you because you have different beliefs to us'

Clegg and Cameron recently worked together on the Gurkha campaign with Joanna Lumley, so they have experience of cooperating together already. As the main opposition parties they've probably spent much more time liaising with each other than either of them ever have with Labour, of whom they both hold a mutual dislike.

They're doing the grown up thing and seeking compromise for the good of the country. Making the most of their common ground to support each other while tolerating each other's beliefs in other areas. Labour is simply too childish to do that. Everything is black and white to them. They may have been just about able to make a deal with the Lib Dems in the Tony Blair era, but not now. It's completely different.

WillPS wrote:Luckily, the LD's are DEMOCRATIC, so Clegg can't really make an unpopular decision

Which is the more unpopular party at this moment in time Will? Labour, or Conservative? Siding with Labour might be popular among the Lib Dem supporters but it certainly would not be popular with the wider electorate, as confirmed by the election results.

Personally, I think a coalition between the two parties will last the whole four years. How you can view it as anything less than an achievement, I'm afraid I find bewildering. I'm actually being the positive one for once while all you can do is pour scorn on the whole thing!

Chie wrote:
WillPS wrote:Luckily, the LD's are DEMOCRATIC, so Clegg can't really make an unpopular decision
Which is the more unpopular party at this moment in time Will? Labour, or Conservative? Siding with Labour might be popular among the Lib Dem supporters but it certainly would not be popular with the wider electorate, as confirmed by the election results.

Personally, I think a coalition between the two parties will last the whole four years. How you can view it as anything less than an achievement, I'm afraid I find bewildering. I'm actually being the positive one for once while all you can do is pour scorn on the whole thing!

I meant the party organisation and the way that all decisions Clegg makes can be vetoed by a number by various bodies within the party.

So, within the Lib Dems, the Lib Dems are pretty popular

This sort of goes for what you were on about before - Clegg's relationship with Cameron will be subject to the above; he can't make an unpopular decision.

Chie wrote:
marksi wrote:You can't object to a voting system because it might result in a result you personally don't agree with.
I've explained exactly why I don't agree with it and that is not the reason.

You disagree with it because it would mean that your views wouldn't be disproportionately reflected in the number of MPs elected, as they are now.

Therefore you can't believe in democracy.

Metropol

77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats

Re: 77% of Voters Didn't Want The Liberal Democrats