Don't tell me...
Tell him. If it's that clear cut and a win-win situation.

The problem is that you're using logic. The masses don't run on logic. They do what the Sun/Mail et al tell them.

People are still blaming the Labour party for the "Global" Economic Recession. The fact that Brown kept us out of the Euro and hence (in hindsight) out of the really deep shit seems to go unnoticed.

I don't think anyone is clever enough to predict a general election outcome, and in politics there is never even enough information to make a really informed decision. People take sides depending on one or two issues that effect them, and bias their arguments to suit that stance. I've had people that can't even manage their own finances properly argue what Gordon Brown should have done to stave off a recession.

Your argument that the Lib Dems could force an election that gets Labour elected but some credibility for them doesn't seem to be a very good gamble. Lose power but gain intangible credibility... Hmmm.

Just look at how the Lib Dems had boundless credibility when they said they'd raise taxes by 1p to pay directly for schools and hospitals. Marvellous idea, showed guts too. Then they got wasted in the election...
(Kliper Filllets Getting noticed by twats on the internet since, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 11:30, 1 reply)

^This
I think it's a fairly shitty policy decision as well, but the Lib Dems clearly got into the coalition in the hope that they could get some of their policies through or temper some of the Tory policies. I don't think that this is anything but a reality check for the voting public. The Lib Dems have never had this power before so their credibility and honesty haven't really been tested. The credibility that they are losing now is simply the credibility that the other two parties lost years ago.

One of the main policies that the Lib Dems want to get through is voting reform. If they can use this to get a share/chance of power that is actually proportional to their share of the vote, it would seem ridiculous to trade it in over a single issue. As KF points out, all the credibility in the world means nothing if you have sod all power.

Finally, the Lib Dems (along with the Tories) created the coalition on the basis of trying to create a stable government (while no doubt being happy to get their grubby paws on some power). Having pledged to try to make it work (which would obviously involve compromise) they risk looking immature and whiny if they destroy it within a year.
(flimflam_machine, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 12:29, closed)

^That
Mostly agree. The Holy Grail for the Lib-Dems is voting reform. BUT - they should have demanded that voting reform goes through BEFORE voting for measures that make then look like promise-breaking cunts. They could put a caveat on the bill - voting-reform doesn't come into effect until 2012. Or similar.

But until they've got that on the statute books they should be telling Cameron to act like a duck.

Stick his tuition-fees bill up his arse.

Cheer
( Legless Mister Stabby - shanks for the memory, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 12:48, closed)

Agreed
The Voting Reform bill will just mean that the Lib Dems end up with the same number of MPs - increasing their number by AV or whatever but then getting wiped out at the next election. Someone may have even crunched the numbers and realised that if the Bill goes through and the Lib Dems lose 50% (say) of their vote, it would still leave them with 2 or 3 MPs less overall and they can then begin the long road to building their voting base back up.

S
(Shamrock, Fri 3 Dec 2010, 13:48, closed)