Two Heads Are Better Than One

  morddwyd 09:39 08 May 2012

Except when they're on the same body, facing different ways

Cameron and Clegg relaunch coalition

Cameron "appears to distance himself from the coalition, saying things would be "more straightforward" working alone" (Second para)

  lotvic 10:50 08 May 2012

You've got to agree, a coalition is a difficult balance, so it would be true for any party leader to say 'more straightforward working alone'

How long before the next election (max)? (Just can't think when it is at mo')

  Condom 12:14 08 May 2012

Well the max is another 3 years and I can't see either head wanting to bring it forward at the moment.

The Tories amaze me as they think a coalition means they can just do their own thing with the LD's blindly supporting them. Things were not going swimmingly but the Chancer really made a mess of things in the budget by tinkering. There really was little need to implement some of his changes expecially when they were 13 months off which gets people thinking are things going to be worse in another 13 months.

Then we get the usual we have heard the voters and we are listening to what they say and then a couple of days later they come out with we are sticking with what we are presently doing. I don't think they are listening or if they are they are ignoring what they hear. To my mind Labour victories at the moment are a poisoned chalice as they will just have to implement the many more cuts we are still expected to see so perhaps that is part of the plan.

  spuds 12:48 08 May 2012

Two heads better than one might be the saying, but in this case it would appear that the two heads cannot agree?.

There's even mention over the weekend, that they have both stated that they will need a rethink, and listen to the public more?.

With regards to a Con/Lib Coalition, then if our local council's attempt to go this way had anything to go on, it will not work. At the last council election, all the Liberals by one lost their seats, and the same applied to the Conservatives. Labour have now got the controlling power, and they are sure letting the public know about it.

Going on an article I was reading this weekend, it would appear that Labour would have perhaps got in, if they had fielded someone other than Ken Livingstone, and the low turn-out might have pointed to this?.

The article also mentioned that this second term for Boris and his follower's, is a possible for him being elected as the next star for Cameron's position?.

  Chegs ®™ 05:06 09 May 2012

It's been two years but it seems there are still people who don't understand the concept of a coalition.

Cameron seems to be one of those who doesn't understand coalition.

  Mr Mistoffelees 10:01 09 May 2012

"Cameron seems to be one of those who doesn't understand coalition."

He understands the Tory concept of coalition perfectly: We make the decisions, you vote yes in the house and smile at the electorate.

  Bingalau 10:10 09 May 2012

Why is this government still blaming the previous government for the fallout from what was a World wide recession? They keep bickering on that the previous government is to blame for everything that has not yet been sorted out as promised.

  spuds 11:36 09 May 2012

"Why is the government still blaming the previous government ...."

Because that is the nature of the game. Blame everyone else, if you don't have the answer?.

But then again, I seem to recall Brown selling off pots of gold at a knocked-down price. The same probably applied to all the national industries as well, and now we are finding that private enterprise doesn't always pays, for the public at least?.

Legal Aid, Consumer Direct and many other public protections have gone to the wall, then we have supposedly Watchdog's (at great public expense)who are frightened to deal with the companies and other establishment's, the public are suppose to be protected and safeguarded from.

I suppose its a case of welcome to the real world of politics?.

  spuds 17:14 09 May 2012

"People are still blind to just how deep a hole we were in in 2009"

Did that include the banker's and money people, who didn't appear to have a clue where everything was heading, and apparently still don't today, going by various governments considerations and actions?.

  john bunyan 17:31 09 May 2012

Gordon Brown's decision to sell Gold reserves in 1999 has cost us about £9 billion. I remember at the time that all the people I knew then were unanimous in the belief that gold was very low, but it is a measure of GB's judgement as to how wrong he was. He continued to borrow (Private Finance Initiative etc.)and went on borrowing. The Bankers were deregulated by him as well, and their misdemeanour's were an exacerbation to the problem he created.

Gold Reserves

The dilemma faced by many now is, Do we try to borrow and spend our way to growth, relying on future generations to pick up the tab, or face a lower standard of living in an effort to reduce the deficit? Greece, Holland France and maybe several others seem to favour more borrowing now, and unless there is a State of Europe , with central rules, these different policies make for a highly unstable future.

  Condom 20:56 09 May 2012


You mean you think that we are not all in this together like the PM tells us.

Surely Eton boys were brought up not to tell lies:-)

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Galaxy Note 8 vs iPhone X

Awful clip art from 1994 is being tweeted every hour by a bot

iPhone X vs Samsung Galaxy Note 8

Les meilleurs navigateurs internet 2017