Thinking about it more and more did Gordon maybe ask for support for the non referendum in exchange for maybe a coalition in 2010. Thats the only way he will win and remain PM.
[Rep]

He wont win because i will have run him down before then!:-).
[Rep]

sean43: What an unkind and dreadful thing to suggest. British politicians don't have anything to do with deals; they are not like those foreign chappies. No, they merely have ' gentlemanly understandings'. You will be accusing them next, of taking bribes, when all they receive are well earned consultancy fees. Doesn't Erskine-May mean anything to you, good sir ?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier:
sean43: What an unkind and dreadful thing to suggest. British politicians don't have anything to do with deals; they are not like those foreign chappies. No, they merely have ' gentlemanly understandings'. You will be accusing them next, of taking bribes, when all they receive are well earned consultancy fees. Doesn't Erskine-May mean anything to you, good sir ?

Are you joking? Take the 1997 election for example, the Labour party and the Lib Dims considered a deal -

BBC News | UK Politics | Blair considered coalition after 1997

BBC News | UK POLITICS | Blair wanted coalition says Ashdown
[Rep]

Eurosceptic Atlant: Should you really be unable to distinguish reality from irony, you had better add me to your 'ignore list'. But I am sure that you can really.
[Rep]

It certainly sounds like a deal was done between Lib-lab, lib told to abstain, must be in return for something, they don't do each other favours for nothing. I thought the same as you about a deal being done regarding the EU vote.
[Rep]

Not just the EU either - they're different shades of blue on almost every issue
Except maybe the inconsequential ones, or the ones they can never get in to power to change.

Yes call me cynical - there's good reason to be....
[Rep]

I don't see it as deals being made.

All three parties leaderships work closely together. Indeed you can see it like 3 different depts of a company. They have their rivalries and the workers probably only see things from their depts stated position.

The heads of dept all take their orders from above though. Sometimes, that might mean on depts being played off against another, other times they will sing in union. The end goal will always be in mind though.

The end goal all 3 of our "main" parties have, is to merge power into their masters hands and lock it down. They are doing a fantastic job of conning people into thinking one dept is better or worse than the other. So long as a gullible public buy that, then the scam goes on.

Voting for the less of three evils, still takes you to the end goal of evil.

One day people might get that and stop considering voting for people like Boris Johnson, who didn't get to his high profile position by being a maverick. The only people who should be considered in the old parties, are the ones who openely defy their leadership at the cost of their career. I'm talking people in BOO for example.
[Rep]

3 in 1 party system. Clegg going back on his word was no surprise.
[Rep]

A maverick backbench Conservative amendment the other evening for a referendum on staying or leaving the EU lead to a three line whip on Conservative MPs to abstain! A useful reminder of the mentality of the Conservative Party despite a few backbenchers who seem to have seen the light on 'Europe'.
[Rep]