UK General Discussion

[afleitch]

If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

No. Because obviously, no agreement on a coalition could be made because one didn't need to be formed until after the election. Labour's whoring just didn't work, and a coalition with the Conservatives was formed. That's how politics works Isn't it fun!

[doktorb]

If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen

And I tell you what did happen. Gordon Brown demanding to stay as PM, Ed Balls turning up to the meeting without so much as a note-pad and Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

So I know who I prefer in power, that's for sure.

[You kip if you want to...]

If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

[afleitch]

If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

As a Tory, I can ensure you that having the Lib Dems on board is far far better than having a minority Tory government enthralled to the backbenches.

[doktorb]

If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

You don't know it would have been. I can't say with absolute certainty, though given our successes in reigning in some of the Conservative fringe elements, I can guess.

More generally, I'm bemused that people (not just you, though you're suggesting this) are still seething over the Coalition's formation, as though it was some kind of duplicitous fraud.

[You kip if you want to...]

If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

You don't know it would have been. I can't say with absolute certainty, though given our successes in reigning in some of the Conservative fringe elements, I can guess.

Aha, right yeah.

[afleitch]

More generally, I'm bemused that people (not just you, though you're suggesting this) are still seething over the Coalition's formation, as though it was some kind of duplicitous fraud.

Because Labour, in negotiations treated the Lib Dems like sh-t. And they can't admit that.

[doktorb]

More generally, I'm bemused that people (not just you, though you're suggesting this) are still seething over the Coalition's formation, as though it was some kind of duplicitous fraud.

Because Labour, in negotiations treated the Lib Dems like sh-t. And they can't admit that.

Well we know that, as I said, Brown demanded to remain PM  and Balls refused to take the talks seriously.

[doktorb]

If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

You don't know it would have been. I can't say with absolute certainty, though given our successes in reigning in some of the Conservative fringe elements, I can guess.

Aha, right yeah.

Well like I said, we'll never know, there'll be one of those £9.99 "What If..." books for sale on this very question come 2015.

But we know what the Conservative backbenchers are desperate for, and it's thanks to the more liberal David Cameron and our influence that they're not getting their way.

I'm happy with the Coalition and our role in it. Leaving the Conservatives on their own has been done before and it's best that history doesn't repeat itself too often on those terms.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Well we know that, as I said, Brown demanded to remain PM

Oh, gosh, how utterly, utterly unreasonable!

[YL]

Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Anyway, there was never any chance of a minority Labour/LibDem coalition after the election because the LibDem leadership is right-wing and does not like the Labour Party, and because large sections of the Labour Party do not like doing deals with bourgeois parties.^* The LibDems entered negotiations with Labour in a spirit of (practically openly admitted to) bad faith, and the Labour leadership of the day in a spirit of some kind of resigned desperation. It was never a starter, and there's no point in anyone (of any political stripe) pretending otherwise.

_{*Obviously it's never put like this, but that is very much the mentality.}

[You kip if you want to...]

I'd prefer even a Tory majority over another Coalition (of any shade) after 2015 if I'm honest.

The Liberals have been nothing but a pointless distraction to the proper work of government.

[doktorb]

Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

[You kip if you want to...]

Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.

[doktorb]

Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.

Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.

Absolutely. When countries such as Australia and Canada went over road-humps, thanks to Gordon Brown's love-in with light touch regulation, we went into a ditch.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

All major political parties supported lax regulation of financial services before 2007 (I understand that it is possible that one of them was very keen on even looser regulation than actually existed, but that's by-the-by), and that general approach certainly didn't start with Brown's tenure as Chancellor. Australia (especially Australia in both possible interpretations of 'especially' in this context) and Canada have come through the past half decade better than most industrialised countries because of their resource based economies, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah.

Basically, Moynihan was right. We can hold whatever views we like, but let's not go around making 'facts' up.

[You kip if you want to...]

Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.

Liam Byrne writing a note saying "There's no money left, we've spent it all"

I don't know why Coalition apologists make such a big deal out of an obvious (though admittedly not very original or funny) joke.

Because there's a lot of truth in that jest. Biggest, longest recession in peace time, record deficit, record borrowing. It may have been funny to him but not to the rest of us!

All of it Labour's fault, clearly.

Absolutely. When countries such as Australia and Canada went over road-humps, thanks to Gordon Brown's love-in with light touch regulation, we went into a ditch.

Light-touch regulation which the Conservative Party opposed, arguing it was too much, right up until everything went - for lack of a better phrase - t*ts up.

[You kip if you want to...]

UKIP sacked their youth chair because of his support for gay marriage, which runs contrary to UKIP's blatant attempt at winning votes off of a moral panic policy.

Also sacked their candidate for City of Chester.

[LastVoter]

If this coalition's a "Ronseal Deal", I must assume that 'the tin' isn't the manifesto of The Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats then.

No, it's the Coalition Agreement.

"Does what it says on the tin." What parts of the coalition agreement did they tell the electorate about again?

All of it. It was published in hard copy and on-line forms upon its signing. It  couldn't be made available before it was written, after all.

Sorry, I guess I'll have to clarify what I meant to make it a bit more obvious, when were the electorate given a chance to democratically elect a government based on such a coalition agreement?

There was no such option. But there was no such option for a "rainbow alliance" which was also on the cards (without a majority) or a minority Conservative government or anything else concrete for that matter. Nobody knew until the votes were counted what was going to happen.

Minority Tory was an option. And a better one at that.

As a Tory, I can ensure you that having the Lib Dems on board is far far better than having a minority Tory government enthralled to the backbenches.

I'm sure that's what LibDem voters envisioned.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A report into Britain's most successful sex offender includes the figure of 214 offences, including 34 rapes. And, for obvious reasons, those figures probably have to be seen as minimum estimates.

BBC self-flagellation over the issue continues: Savile's one man crime wave presented via maps and graphs.

[minionofmidas]

A report into Britain's most successful sex offender includes the figure of 214 offences, including 34 rapes.

Actually, that's not what the link says.

Meanwhile, we have our own sex-offender-from-a-long-time-ago, hiding-in-plain-sight case here. And the same "is anybody surprised" kind of vibe.

[Silent Hunter]

A report into Britain's most successful sex offender includes the figure of 214 offences, including 34 rapes. And, for obvious reasons, those figures probably have to be seen as minimum estimates.

How did this guy manage to get away with this for over 55 years? It seems the only thing that stopped him was poor health.

[minionofmidas]

A report into Britain's most successful sex offender includes the figure of 214 offences, including 34 rapes. And, for obvious reasons, those figures probably have to be seen as minimum estimates.

How did this guy manage to get away with this for over 55 years? It seems the only thing that stopped him was poor health.

No police force wanted to make waves, lots of victims, even when they went to police immediatly, didn't want to prosecute (though who knows what police told them to scare them off doing so), oh and clearly back in the 70s nobody collated data on people who've been named-but-not-prosecuted on such charges. Which might have been a good idea. Police knowing they were dealing with a serial offender might have been less unwilling to prosecute. There wasn't any sort of moral panic around adults getting it on with willing teenagers back then (even though at least in Germany, laws were actually stricter) and there was MUCH more acceptance of predatory, ahem, dating techniques.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A big issue is also who the victims (mostly) were; people who found complaining difficult, and people who's complaints were very easy to ignore. So the classic pattern of institutional abuse, except that it was basically one criminal and multiple institutions.