What is your opinion on the Coalition Government?

[sophiethenerd]

As stated in the title what is your opinion on it?

On one side, parties are working together for the good of the public, and you know what they say, "Two heads are better than one."

However on the other side, both parties have had to compromise on their election promises such astuitionfee cuts, and electoral reform.

Its an interesting debate and I am curious as to your views.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The same as the last government, here's why.

- All three parties support our membership and subduction into the European Union.
- All three parties are committed to more public spending and are opposed to cutting public spending.
- All three parties support propping up the disasterous Euro, of which two of the main parties supported joining not long ago.
- All three parties support soft justice with nothing radical at all happening in the justice system.
- All three parties support higher tuition fees despite pretending not to.
- All three parties support comprehensive education over grammar education.
- All three parties agree with the notion of global warming, despite the fact there has been none for over a decade.
- All three parties support the ridiculous white elephant which comes with a £35bn+ price tag of High Speed Rail 2.
- All three parties support our continued presence and meddling in the Middle East, with our troops dying for nothing in Afghanistan.
- All three parties support the erosion of our civil liberties under the guise of 'terrorism' and 'rights'.
- All three parties support the continuation of foreign aid which in itself is immoral, not effective and of which we cannot afford.
- All three parties support the continuing war dance around Iran, a nation which has not once declared war on us.
- All three parties support the abolishment of the House of Lords, despite it being they who ruined it in the 1998/9 reforms.
- All three parties continue to support devolution even as the nation falls apart at the seams after 300 years.
- All three parties support mass immigration into our small Kingdom.
- All three parties support a fiat currency economy.

Of course, the first issue is the biggest reason why they are all the same - they do not even have a choice on most issues such as fisheries policy, parts of foreign policy, immigration, energy policy, business regulation, workers charters, human rights and so forth because of our membership of the European Union. Any of this anybody wants me to justify or go deeper into, i'll be glad to. So come next election, we can all go to the ballot box and vote for three identical parties (again) which won't make a difference anyway as the European Union now creates most of our legislation.

Of course, that won't matter to most because its all about getting your tribe into office for office sake.

[GommeInc]

As far as I see it it's the Conservative party in charge, not a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The Lib Dems aren't really a party, their existence is to stick onto either Labour or the Conservatives, they hold no values as a party and lack any drive to change the country when given a slight ounce of power.

That said, the Conservatives and Labour don't really know what they are doing. They lack personalities and do not know what they value in life.

[Shar]

Pretty simply, what coalition? The conservatives are more or less fully in charge.

[-:Undertaker:-]

How can we tell the Conservatives are incharge though when both parties are exactly the same, aswell as being the same as the 'opposition'? The truth is that the Labour Party is incharge, and has been incharge since the post-war period with perhaps the exception of the Thatcher government and thats it.

Thats why, if you want change - you have to get rid of the Conservative Party, there's no other way.

[dbgtz]

How can we tell the Conservatives are incharge though when both parties are exactly the same, aswell as being the same as the 'opposition'? The truth is that the Labour Party is incharge, and has been incharge since the post-war period with perhaps the exception of the Thatcher government and thats it.

Thats why, if you want change - you have to get rid of the Conservative Party, there's no other way.

But then most people would go to vote Labour, and to be quite frank I would not want Miliband as PM. Not because of policy or anything like that, but he just really annoys me and I don't think would present the country well.

Anyway they're better then Labour as they have shown signs of very minor budget cutting, but they're still doing a very **** job and think taxation is the way forward when really it just does more harm.

[GommeInc]

The problem with modern day politics in the western world is that politicians are manufactured in schools and come out knowing nothing of the real world. If you want to be treated in hospital, you would expect a doctor who has had some training in the field, but a politician never has had to go through any training or experience, in institutions that are touched by the policitical system. There are no ex-teachers, ex-military servicemen or doctors/nurses running for Government, or at least as Prime Minister, because to be a politician these days you have to be out of touch, posh and preferably rich to get anywhere. Experience isn't a requirement, and you do not have to be in-touch with society.

The best PMs in this country all seem to have come from fairly standard homes. Margarat Thatcher worked when she was young, and hated the way women were treated in politics - they were only seen as housewives, to be seen but not heard. I think Churchill was heavily involved in a military background, so he ran the currently with military precision. These posh imbesiles we have today know not of the country they live in. They believe the country is something you walk a dog in, outside the boundaries of a posh house and a city. They do not understand the big picture, it seems

/essay

[Jordy]

The problem with modern day politics in the western world is that politicians are manufactured in schools and come out knowing nothing of the real world. If you want to be treated in hospital, you would expect a doctor who has had some training in the field, but a politician never has had to go through any training or experience, in institutions that are touched by the policitical system. There are no ex-teachers, ex-military servicemen or doctors/nurses running for Government, or at least as Prime Minister, because to be a politician these days you have to be out of touch, posh and preferably rich to get anywhere. Experience isn't a requirement, and you do not have to be in-touch with society.

The best PMs in this country all seem to have come from fairly standard homes. Margarat Thatcher worked when she was young, and hated the way women were treated in politics - they were only seen as housewives, to be seen but not heard. I think Churchill was heavily involved in a military background, so he ran the currently with military precision. These posh imbesiles we have today know not of the country they live in. They believe the country is something you walk a dog in, outside the boundaries of a posh house and a city. They do not understand the big picture, it seems

/essay

I don't think that's the route of the problem with modern day politics, it is infact one of the few improvements, over 100 years ago virtually every PM before was an aristocrat (Many were Lords and didn't even sit in the House of Commons), and they have anything but life experience. Other than David Cameron most PMs in recent decades haven't been aristocrats and even he's not a full blown one.

The route of the problem is the political system in the modern West, politicians have to make ridiculous promises to get into power for a short amount of time. This results in ridiculous over-spending, debt, being unsustainable and a general short-sightedness. There's little incentive to do anything else. If they don't appeal to the media and thereby the electorate what hope do they have of bringing any change or getting into power? Almost every country in the west is spending well beyond its means and it's getting closer to finally catching up with us.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I don't think that's the route of the problem with modern day politics, it is infact one of the few improvements, over 100 years ago virtually every PM before was an aristocrat (Many were Lords and didn't even sit in the House of Commons), and they have anything but life experience. Other than David Cameron most PMs in recent decades haven't been aristocrats and even he's not a full blown one.

The route of the problem is the political system in the modern West, politicians have to make ridiculous promises to get into power for a short amount of time. This results in ridiculous over-spending, debt, being unsustainable and a general short-sightedness. There's little incentive to do anything else. If they don't appeal to the media and thereby the electorate what hope do they have of bringing any change or getting into power? Almost every country in the west is spending well beyond its means and it's getting closer to finally catching up with us.

Is that an improvement though? can we say our politicians today do a better job than those 100 years ago? the same can be said with the House of Lords compared with the House of Commons.

[Jordy]

Is that an improvement though? can we say our politicians today do a better job than those 100 years ago? the same can be said with the House of Lords compared with the House of Commons.

Well it's difficult to say without rose tinted spectacles but based on our economy and position in the world then and now, I think it's probably right to say it's not an improvement since non-aristocrats have come to power.

Interestingly I found out today my girlfriend is a first cousin once removed of Nigel Farage! I couldn't believe it, I've lots to tell you about it ;D