On 30/10/13 19:32, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 30/10/13 18:22, Tim Streater wrote:

"Vote Tory, get Cameron and an EU Referendum"

I dont do faith Tim..

I voted cameron last time and no referendum. No repeal of fox huntung
ban. No bonfire of the quangos.

All we got was a liberal democrat energy policy.

There was no referendum because the Treaty had already been signed (by
one G. Brown). The referendum was going to ask "should we sign this?",
making any promise *not* to sign it a bit moot.

weasel

Reneging on Treaties
can be done, but would seriously harm your rep if done too often. From
abroad, Mr J. Foreigner is not interested in the subtleties of who is
running Britain, he just sees a sudden reversal of a recently
entered-into agreement and wonders WTF is going on. Rather easier if
you haven't signed the thing.

double reverse ferret

As for the rest, well the country is run by what is known as a
"Coalition". That rather limits what can be achieved in government.

weak
I
don't like coalitions - they are unnecessary because any political
party is almost certainly *already* a coalition. And, by definition,
whatever was promised before the election goes into the rubbish bin.
You have to start from scratch and the resulting agreement, manifesto
if you like, is born from negotiation between the parties. That of
course is another reason to dislike coalitions, because the platform
you are then forced to govern on is not something anyone had a chance
to see, and use to decide how to vote, before the election took place.
So the electorate is bound to feel deceived. But that's no reason to
sulk and go off and vote for some loonies, or to accuse Cameron (or
indeed Clegg, which some of his supporters are doing) of deceit. What
you do is work for a majority government the next time.


So the price of the coalition is a liberal democrat government?

Weak, weak, and weak.

No balls, no leadership, no political risks, nada = conservative vote
wasted.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to
lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the
members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are
rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a
diminishing number of producers.