Who the heck to vote for?

I think you are getting confused with local elections, they require 10.... parliamentary are 20.

Wood Troll wrote:I think you are getting confused with local elections, they require 10.... parliamentary are 20.

Ten or twenty. Makes little odds really.
If you've not got the faith of 20, then you're probably better off spending the deposit on lottery tickets, 'cos you've no hope of keeping it.

Hairyloon wrote:The Lib-Dems talked me out of voting for them yesterday at their conference...

I think I'm going to have to take that back. What appeared at their conference to be a dose of extreme dithering, does actually appear to be a proper (excuse for the?) opportunity to weigh up the ups and downs of the options.
Which I think is exactly what is needed at this time.

I would expect a lot of dithering!

Even in places where after every election a governing coalition must be put together (where no party is ever even close to a majority) it takes a bit of hard bargaining. And they are experienced at it. This hasn't happened for so long in Britain that nobody has that experience.

Minority government? I don't think so in this situation. Not for very long. There are divisions of opinion with the smaller third party "outside" where a minority government by the party in the middle is possible. But rarely when the smaller party is in the middle and in a position to ally with either end.

BTW --- The only advantage the Tories have in this negotiation is that a Labour-Lib Dem government needs to take in some of the minor parties to have enough and I doubt stable. You will notice however that the sine qua non demand of the Lib Dems (no Brown) is being offered.

My prediction? A short lived minority government by the Tories. Brought down as soon as it faces a set back and the Lib dems think that they might do better in an election. I don't think you can go by what often happens in Canada where a minority government can survive because the opposition parties need time to raise enough money to fight another election.

Mike wrote: I don't think you can go by what often happens in Canada where a minority government can survive because the opposition parties need time to raise enough money to fight another election.

I think you can. Both Lib and Lab almost bankrupted themselves fighting this election. The Conservatives have the bottomless pockets of Lord Ashcroft and his other offshore banking chums

Maybe I understated (the problem in Canada)

When you say "almost bankrupted" I presume that you mean they are close to "broke". But the situation in Canada worse than that with the parties ending election campaigns deeply in debt and the only reason not "bankrupt" is that the borrowed money is from supporters who won't call those loans. But they have to pay those supporters back before they can hit them up for new donations.

In both places lack of enthusiasm probably more significant than a couple fat cats with deep pockets. Both here and in Canada there are limits (not all that high) except here there is no limit on what personal funds a person can donate to his or her own campaign for office. If that enthusiasm was present, could raise large amounts of money in the form of smallish doantions form a large number of supporters.

We don't care because not that much difference between them. A plague on both your houses.

I thought the political parties were like most football (soccer) clubs they actually were bankrupt it was just the levels that differed...

On thing that is anoying about the commentaries at the at the moment is the insistance that they just won't get on, don't we all have to work with people that we don't get on with.

IMO after the past 13 years where we were promised that things were going to get better, the "well we haven't had the chance to sort it because of what we inherited" was begining to wear a little thin, how long did they want.

Its about time that somebody was given the chance to make things better, if it means trying something different surely it needs to be given a chance.

DD1 said that if David Cameron wanted change, why couldn't someone give him 30p than he might go away

Just read this - Teresa May - minister for equality .... a joke surely

Mrs May's voting record on LGBT rights.
In 1998 she voted against equalising the age of consent and in 2000,
she voted against the repeal of Section 28, legislation that banned the 'promotion' of homosexuality by local government and schools.
In 2001 and 2002 she voted against gay couples jointly adopting children
.
I could go on but not words fail me and I feel like crying

Also read that this coalition of bastards are planning a massive repeal bill, so rolling back 13 years of social justice and improvements under the pretense of rolling back the state so Dave can have his Big Society - say goodbye to the minimum wage and hello to fox hunting and badger culls.

Badger wrote:Also read that this coalition of bastards are planning a massive repeal bill, so rolling back 13 years of social justice and improvements ...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Improvements?!

On the other hand we HAVE got rid of runway 3 and anything new at Stanstead and Gatwick....which is not bad and is more than Labour have done....

Not sure I approve of Richard Briars "handing over" title to the Airplot plots ofkland, though..no one aske ME if I wanted the bastard tories to have MY bit of the village......