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%
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#61
Report 4 years ago
#61
(Original post by MagicNMedicine)
No I think there should be coalitions, with compromises.

But people can't then turn around and accuse the parties of abandoning their principles.

As for the attack on tuition fees well this was stirred up by the media to attack Lib Dems. One of the core Conservative pledges was to cut inheritance tax, this was even a theme of the final leaders debate days before the election. That got dropped as part of the Coalition agreement. I'm surprised more wasn't made of that abandonment of a key Conservative pledge.
I'm in complete agreement with you!

Labour attacking the Lib dems on Tuition fees is like Hitler criticizing Israel on domestic policies.
0
reply
TIS200
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#62
Report 4 years ago
#62
(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 people should be less reliant on benefits and GET A JOB and off their arse watching telly all day. Granted, I don't think disability should be cut and I don't think they should have to work, but there is plenty of people who CAN work but just sponge off our taxes. Where can we opt out of spending on welfare?
0
reply
Davij038
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#63
Report 4 years ago
#63
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...-taunton-deane
Jesus christ the electorate are morons:

there's somebody voting : Labour so that they can join a coalition with the Tories!
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#64
Report 4 years ago
#64
(Original post by TIS200)
Maybe people should be less reliant on benefits and GET A JOB and off their arse watching telly all day. Granted, I don't think disability should be cut and I don't think they should have to work, but there is plenty of people who CAN work but just sponge off our taxes. Where can we opt out of spending on welfare?
2,500,000 unemployed, 500,000 jobs was the statistic. But then I guess basic maths is beyond many Tories given how they think the deficit works.

And the jobs the Tories have created are all zero hour rubbish which don't pay enough to live on. Then there's the statistical manipulation: did you know people sanctioned or enslaved to high street retailers on workfare or in "self-employment" are all counted as having found a job?

Suddenly we see the motivation for the sanctions targets and the zeal with which IDS has brutalised the poor of this country.

As for disabled people, everyone says that but due to the Tories' treatment of them we are presently under investigation by the UN Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for serious human rights abuses. We are the only country to be thus investigated in the organ's history. I have a disabled brother and I hope IDS ends up in the dock at the Hague for what he has done not only to the disabled but the poor in general.

You really have no idea. Stop swallowing the right-wing media scrounger narrative.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#65
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#65
(Original post by scrotgrot)
2,500,000 unemployed, 500,000 jobs was the statistic. But then I guess basic maths is beyond many Tories given how they think the deficit works.

And the jobs the Tories have created are all zero hour rubbish which don't pay enough to live on. Then there's the statistical manipulation: did you know people sanctioned or enslaved to high street retailers on workfare or in "self-employment" are all counted as having found a job?

Suddenly we see the motivation for the sanctions targets and the zeal with which IDS has brutalised the poor of this country.

As for disabled people, everyone says that but due to the Tories' treatment of them we are presently under investigation by the UN Commission for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for serious human rights abuses. We are the only country to be thus investigated in the organ's history. I have a disabled brother and I hope IDS ends up in the dock at the Hague for what he has done not only to the disabled but the poor in general.

You really have no idea. Stop swallowing the right-wing media scrounger narrative.
Your posted started out reasonably but soon descended into one akin to 'Illegaltobepoor'.

IDS is a horrid man but everything bar your first line is cobwash. Of the 600,000 jobs created in the past year, over 450,000 are full time.
0
reply
TIS200
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#66
Report 4 years ago
#66
This post has taken me many attempts to write but here goes:

You may call me a Katie Hopkins male wanna be, you may call me a conservative, capitalist, racist, fascist and all the names under the sun.

I support the privatisation of the NHS, I support benefits cuts, I support zero hour contracts. Why do I support this? Am I a sheep? Am I clever? Am I indoctrinated? Am I well informed? None of them things, I am a Conservative, a wonderful party and ideology that allows us to thrive.. I do not think that Dave and George and the current Tory cabinet would introduce all these if the main goal was to wreck England? I believe they are a good, solid party who are putting Britain on to the road to recovery.

One reason why I would say NO is that LABOUR would block our benefits cuts. I really think there is much more that can be spent elsewhere for better uses in the government than the welfare system. Are we seriously paying for well, fit and healthy people to sit on their arses all day watching Jezza Kyle? Are we seriously paying for people to eat custard creams all day watching Lorraine and see them get obese and then CLAIM on the NHS for a gastric band? More benefits cuts have to be made, otherwise the country will fall in to dismay.

The second reason is, I seriously think a Tory government can get rid of the Human Rights Act and introduce a Bill of Rights again. What a load of tosh, the Human Rights Act. I never pledged allegiance to it? Why should we pledge allegiance to it? A LABOUR government would block this.

Not very factual, but really just off my mind.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#67
Report 4 years ago
#67
(Original post by TIS200)
One reason why I would say NO is that LABOUR would block our benefits cuts.
What benefits cuts?

I don't think any have been proposed have they?
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#68
Report 4 years ago
#68
(Original post by TIS200)
Am I clever? Am I well informed?
None of them things,
I am a Conservative
Nice!
0
reply
frankieboy
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#69
Report 4 years ago
#69
(Original post by TIS200)
Maybe people should be less reliant on benefits and GET A JOB and off their arse watching telly all day.
You've been watching too much Jeremy Kyle / reading the Daily Mail too much / Listening to Katie Hopkins too much. Listen to what you sound like.
0
reply
pickup
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#70
Report 4 years ago
#70
(Original post by TIS200)
This post has taken me many attempts to write but here goes:

You may call me a Katie Hopkins male wanna be, you may call me a conservative, capitalist, racist, fascist and all the names under the sun.

I support the privatisation of the NHS, I support benefits cuts, I support zero hour contracts. Why do I support this? Am I a sheep? Am I clever? Am I indoctrinated? Am I well informed? None of them things, I am a Conservative, a wonderful party and ideology that allows us to thrive.. I do not think that Dave and George and the current Tory cabinet would introduce all these if the main goal was to wreck England? I believe they are a good, solid party who are putting Britain on to the road to recovery.

One reason why I would say NO is that LABOUR would block our benefits cuts. I really think there is much more that can be spent elsewhere for better uses in the government than the welfare system. Are we seriously paying for well, fit and healthy people to sit on their arses all day watching Jezza Kyle? Are we seriously paying for people to eat custard creams all day watching Lorraine and see them get obese and then CLAIM on the NHS for a gastric band? More benefits cuts have to be made, otherwise the country will fall in to dismay.

The second reason is, I seriously think a Tory government can get rid of the Human Rights Act and introduce a Bill of Rights again. What a load of tosh, the Human Rights Act. I never pledged allegiance to it? Why should we pledge allegiance to it? A LABOUR government would block this.

Not very factual, but really just off my mind.
Maybe the Conservative Government ( Lib Dems are conservatives) are not evil but they are ignorant. Inevitably when they have such a narrow life experience and such a sense of entitlement. They don't need the NHS, good comprehensive education, unemployment benefit, Sure Start etc.

Public schools boys, George Osborne, David Cameron, Boris Johnson , Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage - all - multi millionaires who have never had to think about whether to pay the electricity or buy shoes. This is one of the more valid arguments against such divisive expensive education, that it leaves them unable to understand how most people live and with little imagination to help them, and worse lack of sympathy or even contempt for those who are poorer than themselves. A little more christian charity would not go amiss but men like this only give lip service to such ideas - they have no intention of treating their neighbours as themselves.

Ed Miliband has a much wider life experience. He did after all go to a state primary school in Leeds and a Comprehensive School in London and learned by mixing with people from all walks of life rich and poor. One of his strengths therefore is his ability to get on with people from all walks of life. Those who've met him say he's a great listener and absolutely in sympathy with his voters. He has after all a 30% lead on the next candidate for Doncaster - compare Nick Clegg who has squandered a huge 15% majority in Sheffield Hallam. ( According to Lord Ashcroft's poll) and risks losing his seat.

He has made a total hash of it - viz the first time he came to Sheffield was for his selection meeting, he cancelled the loan for Sheffield Forgemasters, he failed to understand that many people in South Yorkshire voted Lib Dem tactically to keep out the Conservatives ( had he ever even heard of the Miners' Strike or the demolition of the Steel Industry?) yet his party went into a coalition with the Tories and campaign locally and nationally to spend more in rich areas rather than poorer ones!

Of course if you don't know your area you will make such mistakes. Vote Lib Dem get Tory is not a vote winner in Sheffield.
0
reply
Smileyface97
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#71
Report 4 years ago
#71
Tory and Labour have been on opposing sides for ages now. I think a coalition may not work but we'll have to see
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#72
Report 4 years ago
#72
(Original post by Quady)
So you'd rather a Labour minority Govt than a Grand Coalition?
Absolutely. The idea of the grand coalition is born of both Tory desperation to stay on the Treasury benches and of an extremist anti-SNP narrative (that it is impermissible for them to take part in British politics in the normal way) that is itself utterly flawed.

Both major parties would suffer catastrophic, maybe fatal, damage in terms of their standing with their supporters and activists.

After the election, there will be a minority Labour government with SNP providing confidence and supply. The vast majority of people will not give a crap as long as Labour does not give in to any super-unreasonable demands of the SNP and is a good government generally.

And Labour holds most of the cards anyway because what is the SNP going to do? Vote for the Tories or abstain allowing the Tories to take power? They would be finished in Scotland. SNP has no choice other than to prop up a Labour government, which means Labour can offer a few reasonable concessions (further devolution, for example, which would mean Scotland is responsible for their own finances anyway... no subsidy)

The whole politics of Labour + SNP loose bloc is extremely good for Labour and ultimately futile for the SNP. If Labour is seen to be a generally competent government, they will not suffer from making a deal with the SNP
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#73
Report 4 years ago
#73
(Original post by young_guns)
Absolutely. The idea of the grand coalition is born of both Tory desperation to stay on the Treasury benches and of an extremist anti-SNP narrative (that it is impermissible for them to take part in British politics in the normal way) that is itself utterly flawed.

Both major parties would suffer catastrophic, maybe fatal, damage in terms of their standing with their supporters and activists.

After the election, there will be a minority Labour government with SNP providing confidence and supply. The vast majority of people will not give a crap as long as Labour does not give in to any super-unreasonable demands of the SNP and is a good government generally.

And Labour holds most of the cards anyway because what is the SNP going to do? Vote for the Tories or abstain allowing the Tories to take power? They would be finished in Scotland. SNP has no choice other than to prop up a Labour government, which means Labour can offer a few reasonable concessions (further devolution, for example, which would mean Scotland is responsible for their own finances anyway... no subsidy)

The whole politics of Labour + SNP loose bloc is extremely good for Labour and ultimately futile for the SNP. If Labour is seen to be a generally competent government, they will not suffer from making a deal with the SNP
As long as the SNP don't vote for the Tory's they won't be in power, they can still vote against/down Labour.

Its a win for Scotland though, thats the main thing
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#74
Report 4 years ago
#74
(Original post by Quady)
As long as the SNP don't vote for the Tory's they won't be in power, they can still vote against/down Labour.
Of course they can vote against Labour in any ordinary parliamentary vote (though given the SNP has run to the left, they are likely to agree with much of Labour's programme).

But on the issue of confidence, if they do not support Labour, the Tories will get into power. Their supporters won't give a crap about any mealy-mouthed technical distinctions between abstaining in a Tory confidence motion, thereby allowing them to win, or voting in favour thereby allowing the Tories to win. If the SNP had the power to keep the Tories out and did not do so, they would be finished in Scotland. Their parliamentary party would probably split

I would even be happy for the SNP to do that because it would precipitate another election in which Labour would take back a swathe of SNP seats.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#75
Report 4 years ago
#75
(Original post by young_guns)
Of course they can vote against Labour in any ordinary parliamentary vote (though given the SNP has run to the left, they are likely to agree with much of Labour's programme).

But on the issue of confidence, if they do not support Labour, the Tories will get into power. Their supporters won't give a crap about any mealy-mouthed technical distinctions between abstaining in a Tory confidence motion, thereby allowing them to win, or voting in favour thereby allowing the Tories to win. If the SNP had the power to keep the Tories out and did not do so, they would be finished in Scotland. Their parliamentary party would probably split

I would even be happy for the SNP to do that because it would precipitate another election in which Labour would take back a swathe of SNP seats.
How would the Tories get into power? If Labour voted for them you mean?
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#76
Report 4 years ago
#76
(Original post by Quady)
How would the Tories get into power? If Labour voted for them you mean?
Don't be daft.

Say the Conservatives and Lib Dems have more seats than Labour (seems pretty likely). Labour doesn't give the SNP what they want, so the SNP decides to abstain in a Tory confidence motion. Labour opposes, Tories and LD's vote aye. They win the confidence motion and are thus installed on the Treasury benches

The SNP can either oppose a Tory confidence motion, or abstain. If SNP abstain, and the Tories have LD support, they win. Of course, politically speaking abstaining is not really an option for the SNP, they would slaughtered in the next election by Labour. Their constituents would not care about mealy-mouthed justifications and distinctions from SNP leadership between abstaining or voting for the Tories, if their actions resulted in a Tory government

So practically speaking, the SNP must support Labour even if they are unhappy with what Labour offers them for confidence and supply. All other votes are taken on a vote-by-vote basis, and again the SNP would have difficulty explaining why they voted down centre-left measures and sided with the Tories.

If Labour + SNP have a majority, it effectively forms a bloc that locks the Tories out of power and Labour into power given the SNP's limited options re failing to support Labour where that would lead to a Tory administration coming to power
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#77
Report 4 years ago
#77
(Original post by young_guns)
Don't be daft.

Say the Conservatives and Lib Dems have more seats than Labour (seems pretty likely). Labour doesn't give the SNP what they want, so the SNP decides to abstain in a Tory confidence motion. Labour opposes, Tories and LD's vote aye. They win the confidence motion and are thus installed on the Treasury benches
Ahhhhhh thats the bit of the puzzel that was missing.

Sure, they'd get caned for that.

But they would vote against.
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#78
Report 4 years ago
#78
(Original post by Quady)
Ahhhhhh thats the bit of the puzzel that was missing.

Sure, they'd get caned for that.

But they would vote against.
Exactly.

The SNP can't reasonably vote against both Labour and Conservative confidence motions. Practically speaking, they have to support Labour, which means Labour will not at all be in the position of dancing a Scottish jig to the SNP piper's tune.

See also the edits I made to my comment above
0
reply
young_guns
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#79
Report 4 years ago
#79
(Original post by Quady)
Ahhhhhh thats the bit of the puzzel that was missing.

Sure, they'd get caned for that.

But they would vote against.
I hope that explains why I think the idea of a grand coalition is bogus.

There is no practical political reason to say the SNP should not be allowed to vote in favour of a Labour confidence motion. That is just Tory spin.

And the SNP don't really have any alternatives. The SNP are still in the position that the majority of Scots oppose independence, so they have to play a constructive role in the UK parliament in the meantime. And they are the legitimately elected representatives of the Scottish people

The grand coalition scenario is just... a bit silly, really. All this hysteria about Labour being hurt by SNP voting for a Labour confidence motion is just a Tory attempt to **** with Labour psychologically. In reality, the voters aren't going to care if they see Labour is a reasonably competent government, and a government which has no need to offer any substantial damaging concessions to the SNP
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#80
Report 4 years ago
#80
(Original post by young_guns)
Exactly.

The SNP can't reasonably vote against both Labour and Conservative confidence motions. Practically speaking, they have to support Labour, which means Labour will not at all be in the position of dancing a Scottish jig to the SNP piper's tune.

See also the edits I made to my comment above
Well they can...Whether Labour would is a different matter.
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

Why wouldn't you turn to teachers if you were being bullied?

They might tell my parents (17)
7.14%
They might tell the bully (25)
10.5%
I don't think they'd understand (40)
16.81%
It might lead to more bullying (84)
35.29%
There's nothing they could do (72)
30.25%

Watched Threads

View All