Posh Boys in trouble?

[teamsaint]

handsomefortune is right of course. the stealing of the NHS from under our noses, with the compliance of the lib dems (and we know that labour will never reverse it) reminds me of the theft of the grand piano , during opening hours, from a brighton department store.......
if you have enough neck, you can get away with it.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

.... are Scotswomen reliable?

I was only referring to politicians.

[LHC]

apparently, the tory changes will occur right under our noses, but be gradual, beginning with certain operations 'not being available in this area' ... (unfortunately, it's enough to bring on a stroke just contemplating it tbh). for those who believe that they have 'no choice' ...for the moment, labour will at least abstain from pedaling the 'unsustainability' jargon about nhs healthcare. so, in this sense an x is pointless, in view of what's immediately at stake.

Operations (and certain drugs) have not been available in certain areas for some time now - the so called post code health lottery certainly predates the ConDem government - and for all Ed Millipede's bleating about saving the NHS, the move to allow private companies to provide NHS services was started by the last Government when Andy Burnham was the health secretary. It is also notable that the one area in which NHS budgets are actually being cut is in labour-controlled Wales.

Lansley's reforms may well be disastrous, but they are not that different ideologically from the last Labour government's direction of travel on the NHS.

[Lateralthinking1]

and the prospect of winning and having to spend time with the kind of people who really enjoy it ...... and all to be despised and ridiculed and abused

and there is that dismal experience ...canvassing when you realise just what the great british public can be like ...... [out mostly or having supper]

I think there is a good point here.

There is a difficulty in standing for election on behalf of "the people". Winning takes you into a domain that is removed from them and seen as being in contradiction with their objectives. It is also full of pugnacious types for whom a principle can never be joyfully owned without the need for a perceived overt opposition. Given the choice, I would rather spend my time with others who clearly require help, get help and appreciate help. The latter in itself is a problem, apart from being unpaid, in that there is always then that knowledge of a political backdrop that is counter to such interests. I feel really that local authorities should relocate to somewhere like an allotment being run for people with disabilities. Some sort of outside chamber of that kind would concentrate political minds, make the battleground seem trivial and be far less costly to run. In other words, it would help to keep it all real.

[Flosshilde]

PR: the point about PR is that it results in coalitions.

It doesn't have to. The first SNP government in Scotland was a minority administration. The SNP decided that they wouldn't enter into a formal coalition (or perhaps no other party would join them ), but look for support for each Bill. Perhaps it helps that Bills go through a committee system first, & can be ammended or adjusted, before being debated in parliament.

[french frank]

It doesn't have to.

Not every election has to do so, no. Parties can win outright and there can be minority administrations, though there has to be some degree of willingness/cooperation/acquiescence from the other parties.

No party would want to take on the responsibility of government if they were certain that the opposition would force them to give up the main planks of their election manifesto. Supposing the Tories had said to Labour, No, you form a government and we'll shoot you down? A real alternative would have been a three-party coalition where they would all have had to give and take. Not only a real alternative but also an unthinkable one in the UK situation where parties are only used to kicking each other. That isn't the case in countries where PR delivers regular coalitions.

[mangerton]

It doesn't have to. The first SNP government in Scotland was a minority administration. The SNP decided that they wouldn't enter into a formal coalition (or perhaps no other party would join them ), but look for support for each Bill. Perhaps it helps that Bills go through a committee system first, & can be ammended or adjusted, before being debated in parliament.

The list member voting system for the Scottish Parliament was set up so that no one party would ever gain an overall majority, and coalitions would have to be formed. There was great rejoicing - or horror, depending on your political viewpoint - when the SNP gained an overall majority after the last election.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Supposing the Tories had said to Labour, No, you form a government and we'll shoot you down? A real alternative would have been a three-party coalition where they would all have had to give and take. Not only a real alternative but also an unthinkable one in the UK situation where parties are only used to kicking each other.

Now that would be worth an attempt. I seem to recall that David Steel liked this idea when he was leader of the Liberals.

[MrGongGong]

the main planks of their election manifesto.

I would have thought that recent events have made the whole idea of having a "manifesto" in the first place largely irrelevant.

[french frank]

I would have thought that recent events have made the whole idea of having a "manifesto" in the first place largely irrelevant.

Well, given that the major message of the Tories, prior to the election, was that there would have to be big, big, public spending cuts, or as Clegg said, 'savage cuts', I think you're not entirely right.

And, incidentally, it didn't put off 59% of the voters voting for one or the other party!

[eighthobstruction]

Quick....there's some decent weather....out with your leaflets ff....there's 41% hanging loose....[and I don't mean by their chads!]

[Flosshilde]

No party would want to take on the responsibility of government if they were certain that the opposition would force them to give up the main planks of their election manifesto. Supposing the Tories had said to Labour, No, you form a government and we'll shoot you down? A real alternative would have been a three-party coalition where they would all have had to give and take. Not only a real alternative but also an unthinkable one in the UK situation where parties are only used to kicking each other. That isn't the case in countries where PR delivers regular coalitions.

In the case I cited the SNP were the largest party; if after the last Westminster election the Tories, as the largest party, had formed a minority administration then the LibDems (& other parties), not being tied into a formal coalition with a requirement to support policies they were opposed to, would have been in a much more powerful position to do what they claim to be doing (but not with any discernable effect) now - ameliorating the worst excesses of Tory policy.

[Flosshilde]

A real alternative would have been a three-party coalition where they would all have had to give and take. Not only a real alternative but also an unthinkable one in the UK situation where parties are only used to kicking each other. That isn't the case in countries where PR delivers regular coalitions.

A 'national emergency government', similar to the government during the war?

[french frank]

Quick....there's some decent weather....out with your leaflets ff....there's 41% hanging loose....[and I don't mean by their chads!]

They're all gone, eighth. I spoke to five people:

2 - needed to have the referendum explained, said they were against a mayor: may vote but probably won't remember until Friday, 0 votes
1 - did not understand English, 0 votes
1 - expressed interest in that interested way suggesting you're telling them something new but makes you think 'Tory': 1 vote in favour
1 - PV voter, about to post ballot paper, a paid polling clerk: 1 vote against

Plus the guy who chucked the leaflet back at me and slammed the door: 0 vote.

Plus me, 1 vote against.

Looks like a pushover: 67% against, 33% in favour, on 43% turnout. No Boris for Bristol.

[french frank]

In the case I cited the SNP were the largest party; if after the last Westminster election the Tories, as the largest party, had formed a minority administration then the LibDems (& other parties), not being tied into a formal coalition with a requirement to support policies they were opposed to, would have been in a much more powerful position to do what they claim to be doing (but not with any discernable effect) now - ameliorating the worst excesses of Tory policy.

Yes, in theory. But I think the relations between the parties are a bit different. The SNP and LibDems have worked together. With the Tories out of the picture altogether, things are much easier for the 'anti-Tory' parties. After an election in which the so-called 'hated' Tories get the most votes and seats, they wouldn't (this is my opinion) face anything other than bitter opposition. I wouldn't see them lasting five minutes on their own which would have meant another election before the wrecking had begun, and at a time when Labour were on the ropes and Tories on the up.

That's my analysis which is why I tolerate, unwillingly, the marriage made in hell. For the LibDems, there could hardly have been a worse result. And I can conceive of things being much, much worse than they are.

Yes, if I'd been the leader of the biggest party, I would have been attracted by the idea of going to the second largest party first, rather than the third. But I'm not a politician and political parties are unfortunately led by politicians.