Should the UK see a grand coalition? Watch

Poll: Should the UK see a Tory-Labour coalition?
Yes (9)
17.31%
No (41)
78.85%
Undecided (2)
3.85%
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#21
Report 4 years ago
#21
(Original post by Raymat)
Tory-Labour coalition?! I don't think that is possible as both parties are in polar opposites to each other and they pretty much hate each other.
Polar opposites?
0
reply
Chief Wiggum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#22
Report 4 years ago
#22
I strongly imagine Labour would much rather be supported by the SNP than have a "grand coalition" with the Conservatives.

Conservatives and Labour have to be seen to be "opposed" to each other, since they view elections as about beating the other one. Joining up would mean that they couldn't really justify being opposed to the other one at future elections.
0
reply
aoxa
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#23
Report 4 years ago
#23
(Original post by Chief Wiggum)
I strongly imagine Labour would much rather be supported by the SNP than have a "grand coalition" with the Conservatives.

Conservatives and Labour have to be seen to be "opposed" to each other, since they view elections as about beating the other one. Joining up would mean that they couldn't really justify being opposed to the other one at future elections.
I can't see a Lab/Tory coalition happening anytime soon. However, I am even more strongly opposed to a SNP/Lab coalition - they're both anti-austerity, and Sturgeon doesn't give a damn about anyone who isn't Scottish.
0
reply
Chief Wiggum
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#24
Report 4 years ago
#24
(Original post by aoxa)
I can't see a Lab/Tory coalition happening anytime soon. However, I am even more strongly opposed to a SNP/Lab coalition - they're both anti-austerity, and Sturgeon doesn't give a damn about anyone who isn't Scottish.
Yeah, I'd personally much prefer Tory-Labour to SNP-Labour, but I think Labour with SNP confidence and supply is probably the most likely.
0
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#25
Report 4 years ago
#25
It is appropriate in times of war such as 1939-1945. In these times of relative peace, not. A three way confidence and supply arrangement between Labour, SNP and Lib Dems seems the option most likely to have a chance of working, assuming the Tories are not say within 15 seats of a majority.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#26
(Original post by barnetlad)
It is appropriate in times of war such as 1939-1945. In these times of relative peace, not. A three way confidence and supply arrangement between Labour, SNP and Lib Dems seems the option most likely to have a chance of working, assuming the Tories are not say within 15 seats of a majority.
We had one after the Great Depression in the USA.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#27
Report 4 years ago
#27
(Original post by Rakas21)
We had one after the Great Depression in the USA.
Well, can we not generalise it to times of severe crisis then? You can definitely say that war and severe depression are such things, where you need unity.
0
reply
James222
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#28
Report 4 years ago
#28
My Prediction is Tories are the largest party in a Minority around 289, Labour on 254.

The Tories will lead a Minority Administration until Christmas, second election which Labour will win with Ed Balls wife as leader.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 4 years ago
#29
(Original post by James222)
My Prediction is Tories are the largest party in a Minority around 289, Labour on 254.

The Tories will lead a Minority Administration until Christmas, second election which Labour will win with Ed Balls wife as leader.
Christmas election is too early, and I think an election at Christmas is somewhat foolish anyway. Wants leaving a few years

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#30
Report 4 years ago
#30
(Original post by TIS200)
I am a Tory supporter and if it kept the dirty mongrels known as the SNP out then YES. It would look very feasible though. Thanks to the Lib Dem coalition the party has moved towards the 'New Conservative' stance, purely because the party has been restricted by a Liberal party for 5 years. I would vote NO though, purely because Labour would take away the Tory Academy education plan (the school I am at has benefited from it thank god to the Tories), and the economic plan will be restricted too.
Could you lay out what the economic plan involves? The Tories have been trotting the soundbite out like automata for months yet nobody has actually presented a coherent or credible economic plan either in the five years we have had or in the recent budget which set out the forthcoming five.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#31
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Could you lay out what the economic plan involves? The Tories have been trotting the soundbite out like automata for months yet nobody has actually presented a coherent or credible economic plan either in the five years we have had or in the recent budget which set out the forthcoming five.
Continued spending cuts.
Continued tax cuts.
Continued increases in capital spending.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#32
Report 4 years ago
#32
(Original post by Rakas21)
Continued spending cuts.
Continued tax cuts.
Continued increases in capital spending.
Where are the cuts going to be? How can they be borne? Are they even necessary, given that Labour has a plan whereby cuts end after the first year? How will cuts help the economy grow? Similar questions for the capital spending.
Given the personal allowance is approaching 35 hours at minimum wage, further income tax cuts help at best those who are already getting by OK. (And are you going to mention VAT?) At worst tax cuts are a smokescreen to hand even more money to the rich while strangling services for the poor. If you are cutting taxes even further, how on earth do you hope to rectify the current situation, where the tax take has decreased despite this supposed jobs miracle.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#33
Report 4 years ago
#33
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Are they even necessary, given that Labour has a plan whereby cuts end after the first year?
Have they? Could you link me up?
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#34
Report 4 years ago
#34
(Original post by Quady)
Have they? Could you link me up?
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...rgets-says-ifs

Tory cuts
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics...-you-need-know

IFS and OBR, look them up to judge bias
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#35
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#35
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Where are the cuts going to be? How can they be borne? Are they even necessary, given that Labour has a plan whereby cuts end after the first year? How will cuts help the economy grow? Similar questions for the capital spending.
Given the personal allowance is approaching 35 hours at minimum wage, further income tax cuts help at best those who are already getting by OK. (And are you going to mention VAT?) At worst tax cuts are a smokescreen to hand even more money to the rich while strangling services for the poor. If you are cutting taxes even further, how on earth do you hope to rectify the current situation, where the tax take has decreased despite this supposed jobs miracle.
£13bn from departmental spending.
£12bn from welfare
£5bn from tax avoidannce

Labour does not have a plan to end cuts after one year. They've already legislated with the Tories for the current deficit to be gone after 3 years, their cuts will be less severe but still for 3 years. Cut's don't but capital spending already lit the spark, business investment went positive meaning all components of aggregate demand bar net exports are positive. There's little reason to think growth won't stay around 3%.

Perhaps so but £11k is still not comfortable, i don't support burdening the working poor with taxation. The tax take has increased, just much, much slower than predicted and we need to rectify the underlying issues which are not giving a tax cut to those on low incomes.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#36
Report 4 years ago
#36
(Original post by Rakas21)
£13bn from departmental spending. Where? What will be the results?
£12bn from welfare Where? What will be the results?
£5bn from tax avoidannce Lol
Labour does not have a plan to end cuts after one year. They've already legislated with the Tories for the current deficit to be gone after 3 years, their cuts will be less severe but still for 3 years. Cut's don't but capital spending already lit the spark, business investment went positive meaning all components of aggregate demand bar net exports are positive. There's little reason to think growth won't stay around 3%.
All that growth creamed off by the rich as usual then? All this growth and investment has been fuelled by pumping up bubbles in things that don't actually create value such as the housing market and making the country attractive for business which we know is just shorthand for job insecurity and low pay.

Perhaps so but £11k is still not comfortable, i don't support burdening the working poor with taxation. The tax take has increased, just much, much slower than predicted and we need to rectify the underlying issues which are not giving a tax cut to those on low incomes.
Despite that the actual people of the country are worse off. Taking working people out of tax has been offset by rent rises, the stripping back of public services they needed for quality of life, and restricting access to benefits. By the way we know you intend to extend the sanctions regime to the working poor who require benefit top-ups to survive.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#37
Report 4 years ago
#37
(Original post by scrotgrot)
x
Of course, Rakas clearly works in the treasury and knows the ins and outs of all the policies, are you now going to declare it a load of *******s because he can't tell you every last detail?
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#38
Report 4 years ago
#38
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Of course, Rakas clearly works in the treasury and knows the ins and outs of all the policies, are you now going to declare it a load of *******s because he can't tell you every last detail?
Well all right, but they have been banging on about this supposed plan for a long time, you would expect a little more than "oh we're just going to hack another 12 billion off welfare", especially seeing as people reliant on benefits can't even survive after the present level of cuts.

Maybe the Treasury ought to be transparent and let people like you, me and Rakas know exactly how they have worked out these proposals rather than us just trusting them to know what they're doing. Except of course they couldn't tell us even if they wanted to because these figures are nothing more than electioneering, it's clear there's nothing behind them.

Compare this to Labour who have repeatedly offered to have their spending plans vetted by the independent-and-set-up-by-Osborne OBR but been declined by Osborne himself. He doesn't want the British people knowing Labour's plans are rubber-stamped viable.
0
reply
Jammy Duel
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#39
Report 4 years ago
#39
(Original post by scrotgrot)
Well all right, but they have been banging on about this supposed plan for a long time, you would expect a little more than "oh we're just going to hack another 12 billion off welfare", especially seeing as people reliant on benefits can't even survive after the present level of cuts.

Maybe the Treasury ought to be transparent and let people like you, me and Rakas know exactly how they have worked out these proposals rather than us just trusting them to know what they're doing. Except of course they couldn't tell us even if they wanted to because these figures are nothing more than electioneering, it's clear there's nothing behind them.

Compare this to Labour who have repeatedly offered to have their spending plans vetted by the independent-and-set-up-by-Osborne OBR but been declined by Osborne himself. He doesn't want the British people knowing Labour's plans are rubber-stamped viable.
Now, are you claiming that the OBR isn't independent?
And could we not run the exact same thing 5 years ago, did they say back then exactly where every penny was coming from?
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#40
Report 4 years ago
#40
(Original post by Jammy Duel)
Now, are you claiming that the OBR isn't independent?
And could we not run the exact same thing 5 years ago, did they say back then exactly where every penny was coming from?
I guess they didn't, and look what it's led to...

I am not suggesting the OBR isn't independent, no. I mentioned that Osborne set it up so that even the most committed of Tories wouldn't be able to claim OBR approval is meaningless or subject to "left-wing bias".
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (57)
23.75%
No (183)
76.25%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed