plekhanov Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 We are in total agreement for once. So why the need to wait before voting on changing the voting system. Because that can wait, any new electoral system needs to be in place in 5 years time. In contrast clearing up your parties many messes is an urgent prioroty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 Whilst they aren't intrinsically linked they are related and importantly both only have to be settled by May 2015 and will have little to no effect upon the country before then. In contrast thanks to the state Labour have left the country in there are a great many issues that affect people everyday which need dealing with right away and it is only right and proper that they are given priority with things which can wait, like electoral reform, waiting. I think our electoral system is badly in need of reform and when we get the referendum will campaign with everything I've got to try and win it but I'd be outraged if Nick was trying to get that done ahead of rather more pressing matters like sorting out the deficit and issues which affect the day to day lives of people and running of the state. If in two years time nothing has happened then I'll be getting rather concerned but there is no need for electoral reform to be a top priority of the new government right now and a good many reasons why it shouldn't be. Oh how your lot are changing your tune, up until a couple of weeks ago people on here were spouting that there couldn't be any deal without electoral reform, now it is ok to put that on the back burner for a while whilst other things are sorted out. So we are now expected to believe that the review of boundary changes is more important to you than a vote on changing the voting system. Come on credit us with a bit more intelligence. Anyway, what are these issues that are more pressing to you now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 Because that can wait, any new electoral system needs to be in place in 5 years time. In contrast clearing up your parties many messes is an urgent prioroty. So you concede now my initial post was an accurate reflection of the interview, I'll accept the apology then. Anyway which mess are you now more concerned about clearing up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atticus Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 You talk about body language espadrille and with Nick Clegg you could well be right. But Vince Cable is not coming across as someone who is happy with his lot.He could be the one to break ranks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 So why is the referendum on changes to the voting method needing to wait for the review to boundary changes. It isn't coming in this Parliament, I know it, you know it and he has betrayed you once again. Nick hasn't betrayed us once, as has been pointed out to you many times by forming this coalition with the Conservatives he did exactly what he promised to do all along - that is the exact opposite of a betrayal. Now if on the other hand he followed your delusional plan: He should have entered into a deal with neither, forced another election and then entered into negotiations with Labour to get real and meaningful compromises on policy and then agreed that only one party would stand against the Tories. That would have been double betrayal firstly it would be a betrayal of everything the Lib Dems had said about how they would conduct themselves after the election. Secondly and more importantly it would be a betrayal of the national interest. At a time when your party's mismanagement has plunged the nation into financial crisis we need strong and effective government right now. We simply can't afford to have months of government paralysis whilst the nation hemorrhages money simply to try and keep your party in power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truconstruct Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 It wouldn't happen as a high majority of people opposed the cuts coming Where's this mithical majority opposed to cuts you're talking about, I haven't come accross one, get that, NOT ONE person who's opposed to cuts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 You talk about body language espadrille and with Nick Clegg you could well be right. But Vince Cable is not coming across as someone who is happy with his lot.He could be the one to break ranks. I suspect you are spot on, give him six months and either he'll be gone or he'll be Chancellor in a desperate attempt to keep him. One thing I can agree with the Libdems on is the calibre of this man in comparison to George Osborne, he needs to be the Chancellor and not in any way answerable to the halfwit that is in the post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 Where's this mithical majority opposed to cuts you're talking about, I haven't come accross one, get that, NOT ONE person who's opposed to cuts. Really, I suspect you didn't read the manifesto of Labour or Libdems, they both opposed them now whereas the Tories argued for them. Only around 24% of people voted Tory meaning a signifcant majority didn't vote for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plekhanov Posted May 23, 2010 Share Posted May 23, 2010 Oh how your lot are changing your tune, up until a couple of weeks ago people on here were spouting that there couldn't be any deal without electoral reform, now it is ok to put that on the back burner for a while whilst other things are sorted out. So we are now expected to believe that the review of boundary changes is more important to you than a vote on changing the voting system. Come on credit us with a bit more intelligence. Anyway, what are these issues that are more pressing to you now? It is not simply ok that electoral reform waits a little while it is imperative. The leaked Queens Speech has a great deal in concerning matters which need urgent attention and will keep Parliament very busy. Electoral reform only needs to be in place for the next election there is no rush, fixing the black hole Labour have left in our nations finances however... So you concede now my initial post was an accurate reflection of the interview, I'll accept the apology then. Anyway which mess are you now more concerned about clearing up? You are simply delusional, I don't see how you can possibly have honestly read the post you just quoted as a concession that your flat out false claims were correct or an apology of any kind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted May 23, 2010 Author Share Posted May 23, 2010 Nick hasn't betrayed us once, as has been pointed out to you many times by forming this coalition with the Conservatives he did exactly what he promised to do all along - that is the exact opposite of a betrayal. He promised to seek a deal with the party with the most seats, he didn't promise to do a deal with them at any cost. The fact that he has is a betrayal of all those who voted for your policies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.