It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CONSERVATIVES WIN... UK Election...

page: 10
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 7 2010 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by DrHammondStoat
 

What's it leading up to for England?
Well, the LibDems have said they're not going to say anything else about offers today so we'll have to wait. What a Lib/Con deal would mean for the rest of the UK would mean tho is much clearer. Rule by parties that have no mandate. Its bound to stoke the fires of further devolution.


The SNP at Holyrood tried to bring in a referendum for independence in 2011, but the other parties knocked it back ( the SNP are a minority government up here.)

This is a great pity as a year of tory cuts could've tipped the balance.

Instead we're going to be bent over while David Cameron does naughty things to us.




posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


Yeah, that's more or less how it's supposed to be but it has developed into a system where obedience to the party line takes precedence over the interests of an MP's constituents.

I don't have all the answers, but I know that the system we have now is a complete crock of # and the real losers are the electorate who get sold the lie that their vote actually counts for something and that there is someone in Westminster fighting their cause when in reality no-one gives a toss about them or their cares or concerns.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Knobby
 
Personally I dont want to see anything that weakens the Union, but mate, seriously, if the Tories do get in with a majority because of a LibDem alliance, Scotland is going to get hammered. I honestly think it'll be worse than the 80s.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:35 AM
link   
So, apparently William Hague, Ken Clarke & Dr. Liam Fox have been dispatched to talk to the LibDems. All the heavy hitters then... but notice, no George Osbourne... I've always thought he's the Tories' weakest link. I wonder what Vince Cable will be saying in the negotiations. He has got some fiscally conservative views that could probably be sold to the wider Tory party.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bunken Drum
reply to post by Knobby
 
Personally I dont want to see anything that weakens the Union, but mate, seriously, if the Tories do get in with a majority because of a LibDem alliance, Scotland is going to get hammered. I honestly think it'll be worse than the 80s.


Here's hoping...we might get a The Young Ones reunion.


If we do get a tory/lib government, Cleg would do well to remember that a fifth of his seats were returned by Scotland. Look at the torys, they went from about 21 seats about 20 years ago ( if I remember correctly) to 1 Today. We've got long memories up here.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
It is an absolute farce.

Scotland Has it's own Parliment and if you remove there vote then Cameron would have had a 100 seat majority.

the scots have had a fantastic 13 year cushy labour deal....

Give them independance and ill dig along hadrians wall. Oh and whilst there at it they can pay back THE DEBT... that would clear the deficit and some...

They should be careful what they wish for.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by IanC99000310
 


Indeed... Don't get me started, I can rant for quite some time on this.

Scottish input into a parliament that largely only deals with England and Wales needs to be removed. Of course, on UK wide issues include Scottish MP's, but they shouldn't be able to sit in on lawmaking and decide who runs England and Wales.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by IanC99000310
It is an absolute farce.

Scotland Has it's own Parliment and if you remove there vote then Cameron would have had a 100 seat majority.

the scots have had a fantastic 13 year cushy labour deal....

Give them independance and ill dig along hadrians wall. Oh and whilst there at it they can pay back THE DEBT... that would clear the deficit and some...

They should be careful what they wish for.



Now, now...be nice.

You can bang on about it for the next 5 years but what will the English do about it...NOTHING.
At least in Scotland we have a party in which it's main purpose is to gain independence.
Aren't the torys official name 'the conservative and unionist party', bit of a givaway there. Labour need the Scottish seats, so that leaves the SNP.
But, the vast majority of Scots don't want independence, so I'm afraid we're stuck with each other.

If reforms are to be made then a solution to the West Lothian question needs to be addressed.


...but in the meantime, let's address the Barnett formula...open yer wallet lads!



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 03:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Knobby
 


Actualy, we do. We have the English Democrats, who want england to have its own parliment. Wales, scotland and N.Ireland have one, so why cant we?? That's their view anywho.

Im very dissapointed with the possibility of the libdems and tories forming, the majority of people i know voted libdems for the reason that they DO NOT EVER want the tories back in. Yes, they dislike labour, but looking at it all, alot of people know what the tories are like. Just look at this example of careful wording by cameron....

"We will do what is best for the nation interests"

What does that mean?? The people?? The business?? The pound?? The workforce?? Does not say any of them. Like last time, it was the economy, and the people and jobs suffered. With labour, its people and jobs, and this messed around the economy. It seems to be one or the other, hence why we switch every 10yrs. When the economy is fecked, the tories get in, when the people get treated like crap (the lower class's anywho), labour get in. And i think we have seen this been proven since the thature years.

We need more than a 2 party system, with the media keep on mocking the LibDems, no one ever votes for them because they feel like they will never get in because no one else will vote for them.

Im not advertisin the LibDems by the by, im just using it as an example. The next few weeks do look interesting, too see how much clegg can get out of brown and cameron.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by IanC99000310
 

the scots have had a fantastic 13 year cushy labour deal....
Yeah, & they've also had decades of the revenue from North Sea oil being appropriated by Westminster before they get a portion of it back to fund public services. In the meantime, 1st the Tories & then Labour squandered that money. Where was the investment to replace the heavy industry that the Tories destroyed? It only materialised as tax incentives to foreign companies to create high capacity, low manpower manufacturing of junk which actually only resulted in successful British businesses being taken over by global corps, mainly through leveraged buy outs, ie by racking up debt that could only be sustained in the over inflated financial market that began in the late 80s when neo-con economic ideas took hold across the bulk of the world's thinking.
TBH, if I lived in Scotland, I'd be feeling ripped off.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 
You do realise that SNP MPs do not vote on matters that only affect England & Wales, right?
Oh, f# it! We're scared of huge looming problems: lets do the traditional British thing & blame anyone else. Even better if its the Scots, because they're generally the same colour as us, so we cant be accused, by anyone else, but more importantly, by ourselves, of racism.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 04:58 PM
link   
After doing some research for once, without speaking and thinking impulsively (as is my custom
.... Comes from my moms side), and reading the Lib Dem manifesto and bios of people like Vince Cable... I have come around to ThoughfullStills point of view and think that a Tory/Lib Dem coalition is an incredable opportunity.... Having good men like Vince in a cabinet position would be excellent... I would also like to see the Lib Dems get their way on electoral reform and do not think it is right that Cameron should deny us the opportunity of a refferendum on it... There is a clear mandate from the electorate on this issue and Dave should shut up and bend to the will of the people on this....
I think there are interesting times ahead... And I hope that they succeed for all our sakes..

[edit on 7-5-2010 by Yissachar1]



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


What positions in the cabinet would you consider giving to the libs. Would the tories really give good positions to the dems?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:12 PM
link   
So Ken Clarke, fresh from his negotiations with the LibDems, just said that we might not have a new govt by monday. Hmmm, I'd guess their initial offer has not been well received... He also attempted to dismiss the issue of electoral reform. Shortly after, the BBC had a LibDem spokesperson claiming that electoral reform wasn't that important.
Thing is, the LibDems are a very democratic party. Whatever the leadership might want to agree to, the party structure must agree to 1st. Perhaps thats why Clarke thinks it will take longer than the weekend. Still, what else could the Tories have offered that might convince 2 distinct flavours of view that are opposed to conservative ideas amongst the LibDem Party?
Is this a case of reverse Blairism? I mean Blair was conservative-lite; will Cameron be slightly to the left again, ie use the lure of power to drag the Tories actually into the centre as opposed to centre-right?



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:13 PM
link   
reply to post by andy1033
 


There was speculation that Vince could be the foriegn or home sec... I have no idea what position Nick Clegg would have but I hope they hurry up with a deal before the markets open on monday....



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


I just hope that they both act in the best interest of the British people and put party politics aside for a change...



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 05:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Yissachar1 reply to post by Bunken Drum
 
I just hope that they both act in the best interest of the British people and put party politics aside for a change...
Yeah, well I wont be holding my breath. What people in contact with the representatives of wealth consider "in the national interest" is a whole different thing to what does the rest of us any good.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Bunken Drum
 


Vinve Cable is an economics genius, his natural position would be Chancellor, unfortunately I can't see The Tories giving such a prominent and high ranking role to the LibDems.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
You guys have to remember the uk public would not accept labour back in as the brits voted them out. That leaves lib dems with only one option to take what the tories offer them.

306-51 or what ever it is. With respect why is teh 3rd party of choice dictating to teh winners what it can do.

The british public would not accept labour being in power when they where clearly voted out.

Tories have the upper hand in this, and lib dems, need them rather than other way round.



posted on May, 7 2010 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Lib Dems won't go with Torys . Clegg is just fulfilling his election promise to talk to the party with most votes first and maybe upping the ante for a better deal with Labour. Libs dems would be abhorred and alienated by their supporters to give up the chance of a referendum on PR with Labour just for the chance of a junior partnership with right wing tories, who they are ideologically at poles apart with. Anyway , when it all goes pear shaped , it'll be the Liberals that'll get the blame in such a union.


[edit on 7-5-2010 by Drexl]




top topics



 
3
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join