Vote lib dem in local elections?

[MrSmith]

I'm calling you on your argument that LibDem voters knew they were voting for a full Tory/LibDem coalition. It's a shame you have to resort to abuse when you can't prove your argument.

 

You are persistent aren’t you, I haven't said that, and I didn’t abuse you.

[clinteastwoo]

I think your mind is playing tricks with you. The talk pre-elections was not about coalition but hung parliament.

 

There were various possible outcomes. For example if Cameron had got to within a handful of seats of a majority there probably wouldn't have needed to be a full coalition with the LibDems. Labour made attempts on May 7th/8th to form a coalition with the LibDems. For days after the election there were still several possible outcomes.

 

You make it sound as if a Tory/LibDem coalition was a done deal before the election and people knew they were voting for it. That couldn't be further from the truth. Neither the Tories or the LibDems campaigned on a joint platform.

I do too, I can not remember Clegg or anyone else going into the election talking about forming a coalition, although I imagine all scenarios would have been discussed at some point but by no means means that Voters would have been voting for them on possibilities.

 

People vote for parties for all sorts of reasons, in hope that they win and for the policies that they campaign under, or to strengthen the opposition or even protest vote but I cannot remember anything in the lib dem campaign that said vote for us and we will form a coalition.

 

What Mrs is saying is a down and out lie that lib dem voters in some way voted for them to form this coalition. LIES LIES LIES

[I1L2T3]

Sorry about that, it works perfectly for me, the link probably doesn't transfer between browsers.

 

Click, then go down the left hand side, click Custom Range and enter FROM: 1 Jan 2008 TO: 3 May 2010.

 

Works ok in Firefox not IE. That said if you actually read the results not once does Clegg say anything concrete about forming coalitions. In fact in the second link from Feb 2010 Clegg rules out the idea stating he believed we would have a minority government. So, thanks for proving my point.

[MrSmith]

Works ok in Firefox not IE. That said if you actually read the results not once does Clegg say anything concrete about forming coalitions. In fact in the second link from Feb 2010 Clegg rules out the idea stating he believed we would have a minority government. So, thanks for proving my point.

 

Sunday 25 April 2010

Nick Clegg goes public on coalition – and looks to the Conservatives

Nick Clegg today signalled that he would speak to the Conservatives first about the formation of a minority government if Labour came third by share of the vote on 6 May, rejecting the constitutional convention that the prime minister should be allowed to try to form a government first.

The Liberal Democrat leader also made it explicit for the first time that electoral reform would be an unavoidable precondition of any coalition government as he insisted that Labour will have forfeited the right to govern if it comes third.

 

This is not isolated it was all over the news and in the papers, you must have been away at the time.

 

Monday 26 April

Nick Clegg: I could work with Labour, just not Gordon Brown

Nick Clegg hurriedly revised the Liberal Democrat post-election negotiating position today by insisting that he had not ruled out a possible deal with Labour in a hung parliament. However, he said that if Labour came third in share of the vote – with polls suggesting that is a distinct possibility – he did not believe that Gordon Brown could remain as prime minister.

 

Monday, 26th April 2010

Any Con-Lib deal will be tough for the left-wing of the Lib Dems and the right-wing of the Conservative party. But both will have to accept that power is better than opposition and that being able to implement part of your party programme is better than carping on the sidelines, your manifesto languishing on never-visited websites.

 

Monday, 26 April 2010 12:00 AM

 

Debate over a possible coalition government has reached fever pitch with opinion poll after opinion poll hinting at a hung parliament.

 

If no party receives a majority, they will be forced to enter into a coalition or seek support for their policy programme from the opposition benches.

[I1L2T3]

This is not isolated it was all over the news and in the papers, you must have been away at the time.

 

He hints, he states that he would talk to the Tories first, coalition is a priority, minority government is a possibility. And all this really only starts to get serious airtime in the week before the election, not before. But it is still all ifs and buts for the blindingly and very, very simple reason that NOBODY knew the outcome of the election beforehand.

 

I return to your argument, that I am still calling you on, that LibDem voters knew they were voting for a coalition. They knew they were voting with the possibility that there would be a hung parliament but nowhere, anywhere is it stated that a cast iron certain outcome was a coalition.

[Tony]

In your own words you say on the one hand that there was no cast iron certainty of coalition and on the other that nobody knew the outcome of the election beforehand.

 

Politicians can't have it both ways, and neither can you.

[I1L2T3]

In your own words you say on the one hand that there was no cast iron certainty of coalition and on the other that nobody knew the outcome of the election beforehand.

 

Politicians can't have it both ways, and neither can you.

 

The argument is about what voters thought would happen. MrSmith would have us believe that people were voting for a coalition which is patent nonsense.

[Tony]

If those same voters took even a passing interest in the media they knew full well that a coalition between the Conservatives and Lib-Dems was a likely outcome.

 

It's difficult to see how anyone can credibly complain about their vote for the Lib-Dems after the event. Perhaps there should be some sort of test before people are given a vote? Perhaps something like the one where they put a sticky spot on the chimps forehead and then show it a mirror to see if it realises that it's looking at itself?

[I1L2T3]

If those same voters took even a passing interest in the media they knew full well that a coalition between the Conservatives and Lib-Dems was a likely outcome.

 

It's difficult to see how anyone can credibly complain about their vote for the Lib-Dems after the event. Perhaps there should be some sort of test before people are given a vote? Perhaps something like the one where they put a sticky spot on the chimps forehead and then show it a mirror to see if it realises that it's looking at itself?

 

It was a possible outcome but not what people were voting for. A big difference between the two. The argument that people elected a coalition government is a fallacious one. People voted for parties that then won a particular number of seats. The number of seats won by each party was not known before the election. Tory minority government was still a very likely outcome too.

[Tony]

I fundamentally disagree, but let's apply that thought process to the local election topic of the thread.

 

What outcome do people think they are voting for by voting against the Lib-Dems in the coming local election?