The unofficial AFC Rushden & Diamonds messageboard

I would love to see a rainbow coalition so that STV can finally be put forward to the country, however with many Labour back-benchers opposing it it would fall and the opportunity of a generation would be lost. I'll settle with Lib-Con and pray that the referendum on the Alternative Vote is passed through Parliament and voted on by the public so we can see a tiny amount of change. Unfortunately I have doubts that the right-wing Tory back-benchers would willingly pass such legislation, so much for the change their leader preaches. I've got a feeling that the progressive majority's going to be shafted again. :(

Oh and seeing George ****ing Osbourne in the Treasury will sadden me greatly.

Oh and the possible 'rainbow' should govern for as short a time as possible. Pass AV and get a referendum on STV. As soon as the referendum is won (which I believe it would despite the anger of the Murdoch empire) and put into law call another GE and create a more stable coalition under fair rules.

Sara Pascoe wrote:Oh and the possible 'rainbow' should govern for as short a time as possible. Pass AV and get a referendum on STV. As soon as the referendum is won (which I believe it would despite the anger of the Murdoch empire) and put into law call another GE and create a more stable coalition under fair rules.

For those that haven't researched STV http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_transferable_vote

Worth a read

coltrane wrote: Mathematically you may be correct but politically you could be way off the mark, you see for a Labour Liberal DUP coalition to form a strong alliance it would require all of the MP's to follow the party whip for all of the crucial votes which the government will face having to make in the next parliament. Many of the cost cutting exercises and tax rises could be very hard for MP's of all party's to swallow, 10 or 15 Labour Liberal or DUP members not agreeing with the bill and abstaining or voting against would lead to a hasty collapse of the Government and lead to a dire financial crisis. Whereas a Conservative Liberal alliance although it may not always be amicable would not require 100% of the Liberal MP's to vote with the Government 100% of the time, which would obviously mean a more stable Government being better for the country in the long term. :lol:

Actually I see Cameron going back to the polls within months of forming a coalition government to try and get a majority, especially since they are financially better off to than the other parties. It would worth the gamble from his perspecitve. How the public will react to that would be interesting.

You are correct that the coalition I described above would be fragile, but it could still be formed anyway. The role of the independents would play a crucial role in such a situation.

The party I see losing out the most of all this if they don't get their main goals are the Lib Dems. There have been rumblings from within their ranks and voters about making a deal with either of the other two parties. They could very well regret going to either coalition.

For those who voted for change by putting a cross next to a Liberal Democrat candidate may I remind you that it will be a "Conservative Liberal Democrat" alliance, not a "Liberal Democrat Conservative" alliance, there is a big difference. The talks have taken so long because Clegg "the kingmaker" would have preferred the option of his party being in a government with the Labour party, as he would be more able to use leverage against a Labour government minus Gordon Brown than he will against the Tories. It strikes me that from the comments being made by some senior Labour politicians they see more gain from being out of a coalition in such troubled times, preferring to let the Tories and Lib dems take the tough decisions and public outcry for the swingeing public sector cuts on the horizon. They see no benefit for themselves in trying to square the circle whilst having to rely on the Liberals and others who will have their own agendas to follow. :lol:

There would be little to gain for the Tories in calling an election if the Liberals join them in government as the outcome could end up the same in a hung Parliament. The fact is that the electorate jointly came up with this result so now it is up to the Conservatives and Liberals to make it work, who knows if the two sides work for the best interests of the country and avoid petty squabbling it might turn out to be a good election result for the country. :lol:

The Lib Dems only got 57 seats talk about building your part up, come on Clegg just say yes and stop making a fool of yourself. I'm waiting for the first vote when the government tries to cut public spending and then we'll see all the Liberals cancelling their party subscriptions. The next election could see the Liberal Democrat party fighting the Real Liberal Democrat party or the Provisional Liberal Democrat Party, well they wanted "new politics"? :lol:

Yes, they only got 57 seats, but they got more than a fair share of the vote.

Irish Diamond wrote:Yes, they only got 57 seats, but they got more than a fair share of the vote.

Are those ED BALLS???? :lol: :lol:

woody wrote:

Irish Diamond wrote:Yes, they only got 57 seats, but they got more than a fair share of the vote.

Are those ED BALLS???? :lol: :lol:

If they are, i suggest he goes to the doctors ;)