csmonitor.com/Commentary/the … in-Britain
There’s quite a lot of talk about this on Facebook, all my Brit friends seem upset with this result.
Do I just have one-sided friends or are these two really that bad? Someone must have liked them and voted them in.
Yes you have one sided friends plus FBook tends to represent a segment of society that might tend to be more liberal.
Trick question, isn’t it?
As a left-of-centre liberal (in the British, not the American sense - I count myself on the left wing of the Liberal Democrats), my quick review:
Good: civil liberties (New Labour committed some terrible sins here), deficit reduction, possible changes in the political system, retention of nuclear deterrent (while other countries also possess same), getting those who can work off benefits
Bad: public services, taxation policy (I wanted tax cuts for the lowest earners, not the highest), likely widening of income disparity, emphasis on “conservative” values including promotion of (straight) marriage and traditional families, emphasis on big business (mind you, that’s the same as New Labour)
Wait and see: overall economy, Europe, armed forces, immigration, devolution, environment (though I’m pessimistic here)
Hopefully the Lib Dems will be able to moderate the worst excesses of the Tories, especially on Europe (where the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories is ideological rather than logical) and banking/city reform. Osborne, the new chancellor, is a complete tool and I would have much preferred Cable or Clarke in that role. The “special relationship” between the UK and the US will likely not suffer from this change in government.
I imagine most people unhappy with the turnout are not relishing the odds that they will have to vote again in the next year or so. Which is usually the case with a hung Parliament. No matter how well.
I want to know this too! 
What price did the Lib Dems manage to squeeze out for the deal?
You mean coalition government, not hung parliament, a term only used in UK as far as I know.
So, building a consensus government, moderating views of ruling party, bad?
Also how much evidence is there that coalition govts end up badly…since 1929 UK has only had two coalition govts, 1974 and now.
I don’t know that I just heard Lib Dems will get a MP related to “Climate Change”. :neutral:
[quote=“headhonchoII”]
You mean coalition government, not hung parliament, a term only used in UK as far as I know.[/quote]
:no-no:
What are you? My Form 3 English Master? I meant what I wrote, thank you very much!
Referendum on changing the voting system from First Past the Post to Alternative Vote. Clegg is Deputy PM, plus they got four more cabinet posts: Business, Innovation and Skills; Energy and Climate Change; Scotland; and Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The big jobs, Chancellor, Foreign Sec, Home Sec etc. all went to Conservatives. Tories dropped their plans to raise the inheritance tax threshold (widely seen as “tax relief for the rich”). Lib Dems got their way on raising the threshold on income tax for low earners, but lost out on immigration policy and abandoning the UK’s nuclear weapons capability. The Lib Dems have a more progressive environmental policy, and it looks like elements of that will be adopted.
Referendum on changing the voting system from First Past the Post to Alternative Vote. Clegg is Deputy PM, plus they got four more cabinet posts: Business, Innovation and Skills; Energy and Climate Change; Scotland; and Chief Secretary to the Treasury.[/quote]
Wait, are you telling me that “Scotland” in British government is the equivalent to “Climate Change”? Hahahahahaha. No wonder Sean Connery always seems ready to Braveheart London’s ass every time I see him in the news with his kilt in a bundle.
Man you just made my day. What do you think, Sean?
[quote=“TheGingerMan”][quote=“headhonchoII”]
You mean coalition government, not hung parliament, a term only used in UK as far as I know.[/quote]
:no-no:
What are you? My Form 3 English Master? I meant what I wrote, thank you very much![/quote]
Use whatever term you like, but it doesn’t make much sense to me.
[quote=“Taffy”]As a left-of-centre liberal (in the British, not the American sense - I count myself on the left wing of the Liberal Democrats), my quick review:
Good: civil liberties (New Labour committed some terrible sins here), deficit reduction, possible changes in the political system, retention of nuclear deterrent (while other countries also possess same), getting those who can work off benefits
Bad: public services, taxation policy (I wanted tax cuts for the lowest earners, not the highest), likely widening of income disparity, emphasis on “conservative” values including promotion of (straight) marriage and traditional families, emphasis on big business (mind you, that’s the same as New Labour)
Wait and see: overall economy, Europe, armed forces, immigration, devolution, environment (though I’m pessimistic here)
Hopefully the Lib Dems will be able to moderate the worst excesses of the Tories, especially on Europe (where the Eurosceptic wing of the Tories is ideological rather than logical) and banking/city reform. Osborne, the new chancellor, is a complete tool and I would have much preferred Cable or Clarke in that role. The “special relationship” between the UK and the US will likely not suffer from this change in government.[/quote]
Agree with some of the above. N.B. No one proposed getting rid of UK nuclear weapons.
Agree about civil liberties and political reform (though Tories will fight electoral reform and gerrymander the Commons). This is in Nick Clegg’s hands, so unless they castrate him, should be good. Public services will be endangered, but money would be tight under anyone. I adhere to the Keynesian view that people need money in their pockets to spend, keeping other people in jobs, giving them money to spend, …
Lib Dems managed to persuade Cons not to implement inheritance tax cut (though many Tories may be glad to have got rid of this daft policy to help the top 3000 families with estates over £1 million). At the other end, they’ve got the concession to raise income tax threshold to £6000 and over time to £10,000.
I’m relatively optimistic about the environment. No doubt about the Lib Dems commitment to the environment and particularly Chris Huhne, the Climate Change Secretary. There seems to be a degree of consensus here.
Looks like a fight between Vince Cable’s Business department (wanting to split high street from investment banks and regulate them) and Gideon George Osbourne’s treasury. The Treasury usually win these fights, though Osbourne is a bit dim and Cable is not.
On the political strategy point of view, Cameron wanted to reign in his right wing and cover his arse from malcontents inside and outside the party. Also have a chance to do something really new. Both sides clearly want a stable 5 year government that makes real achievements.
I believe the Lib Dem strategy is to prove that there is nothing scary about hung parliaments and coalition governments. A week ago Conservatives and their lapdogs in the press were claiming it would bring the end of the world. Without this argument, their remaining arguments are the 1 local MP, 1 constituency link, which is a non starter if Lib Dems go for AV+ which is constituency MPs + top ups. This leaves, “…but we’ll never have a majority Tory government again” to which there will be whoops of delight across the country!
Both parties will face malcontent in the ranks - Lib Dem conference should be interesting since it makes ‘official’ party policy (which in this case obviously must be trumped by government policy).
btw, there was no coalition in 1974. It was a hung parliament and negotiations came to nothing, resulting in another election. There was a coalition between 1940 and 1945. And a “National Government” in the 1930s.
Yeah, and the UK won the war during that time against heavy odds…so coalition governments, bad?
The Lib Dems’ manifesto commitment was not to renew Trident (i.e. our submarine-based immediate launch capacity), but I heard Clegg on the radio advocating the dismantling of our nuclear weapons and the stockpiling of “fissile material” which could be converted back into weapons if the need arose. I think this involves some wishful thinking on the geopolitical future.
The Lib Dems’ manifesto commitment was not to renew Trident (i.e. our submarine-based immediate launch capacity), but I heard Clegg on the radio advocating the dismantling of our nuclear weapons and the stockpiling of “fissile material” which could be converted back into weapons if the need arose. I think this involves some wishful thinking on the geopolitical future.[/quote]
Not to renew Trident like for like - absolutely yes. To extend its life possibly. Or to keep nuclear warheads on other delivery systems - possibly cruise missiles. Trident is one of those political taboos (like immigration) - if you say take a look at all the options without prejudice as to the outcome - you’re a crazy, naive, peacenik, surrender monkey.
I agree Trident is hugely wasteful and other options would be much better. My objection was to abandoning the nuclear deterrent altogether.
So no problem then. Unless you woke up to a Green government.