kowenicki said:
bazmeistergen said:
headshot91 said:
kowenicki said:
I am getting rather annoyed with the lib-dems...
It is patently obvious that they arent now working in the best interests of the country at all.
The ONLY thing they want guaranteed is political reform, thats about the best interests of the Lib-Dems and not the people of this country. Whats happened to all their principles on "fairness" in the economy and the massive change in immigration and defence.. you know real issues that affect people every day.... all of these can apparently be sacrifised apparentrly so long as tyhey get political rfeform. Weak, spineless self serving politicians... as per usual.
Labnour are even worse... they are saying they will agree to everything and anything to hang in there. sickening.
If we end up with a coalition of losers then I, and I think the vocal majority, will be mighty pissed off. I'd expect Nick Clegg to get an absolute mauling in the press if he sells his soul and integrity for a slice of power... a slice of power that wont last 6 months in my opinion. A lib/lab agreement is built on sand and would evaporate very very quickly.
Gordon Brown hasnt won anything ever... he didn't win an election of even his peers to become party leader, he didn't win an election to become prime minister and now he has lost another election as leader... and he has the chance to stay as Prime Minsiter.... and this is democratic is it? Do me a favour... it stinks!!!!
|
That statement does not make ANY sense. Lib dems got 6 mill votes. Labour got 8 mill. Conservaties got 10 mill. YET, LD got LESS than a quarter of the conservative seat count. How is that fair? How is that not good for the people, when LD get almost 2/3 of conservative, and almost 3/4 of labour votes, but are stuck with less than a quarter of the seats. Of course its for the LD, they are not being represente well, even though they got so many votes. Proportional representation is what they want, and its best for everyone.
|
I agree with you. Kowenicki is so blinded by a single perspective that he doesn't acknowledge that there are all sorts of equally valid views about what the Lib Dems are doing. Why don't we just say that Con-Lib would be a coalition of two unpopular groups? After all, the Conservatives only managed 36%... It is silly really. People are bleating all over the place without realising they sound daft. Everybody is right and wrong at the same time.
As for Gordon Brown, didn't he win his seat? Again?
And why politicians get served everytime is beyond me... they are just like any of us and seeing the worst in them all the time is just ridiculous.
|
With respect....
We dont have PR yet, you are putting the cart before the horse and are talking like we have PR already.
This is about a strong government NOW!
lab and lib would bring 315 seats (not even a majority)
Con and Lib would bring 363 seats
Lets not be silly about this. Only one of the above is anywhere near strong government. A rainbow coalition would be required for the lab/lib deal and that is utterly unworkable and stupendously naive.
|
No I'm not, I'm saying that PR is the way to go. Even if the conservatives formed an alliance with the lD, it would still mean more than 40 percent of the parliament is against them!
I need to reiterate this i think.
Lib dems got 6 mill votes. Labour got 8 mill. Conservaties got 10 mill. YET, LD got LESS than a quarter of the conservative seat count. How is that fair? To say that "all they want" is political reform and it sonly in the "interests of the lib dems", is rubbish, its unfair that 6 million people voted for them, and they get such a pitiful representation in govt!
