Talk:Lib–Lab pact

When people say "Lib-Lab pact" they usually mean 1977. gives some clues as to its use pointing at David Steel, UK general election, 1979, James Callaghan, as well as Labour Party (UK) and Liberal Democrats (UK). Why can the article not say so? --Henrygb 12:19, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

Because they don't, especially if they are in Scotland (and earlier, in Wales). In Scotland the "Lib-Lab Pact" is still very much a matter of current discussion so to state it as being all about the 1977 one is very much a England-centric POV. I only created the page recently so haven't started going around to see what else should link here (although did add a couple of more obvious ones). There is certainly an opportunity to add in the earlier links (which were a surprise to me when I started creating the page!). As an encyclopedia we should give weight to all historical and current events rather than just ones in our lifetime (imho, anyway) and there is also an education element here to let people know that it wasn't the first time the two parties got very close. --VampWillow 19:57, 2004 May 16 (UTC)

I agree with Henrygb. In Scotland when referring to the ruling coalition they don't use the words 'Lib-Lab Pact'. They call it a coalition. I agree that most people would assume it refers to the situation in 1977 where the Liberals supported the Callaghan Government but did not become part of the government. The current situation in Scotland is different as the Lib Dems form part of the Scottish Government which gives them a say over policy, and collective responsibilty holds them to it. Catchpole 19:38, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As above, *the* Lib-Lab pact was what came about in 1977. This is a wishy-washy article with no basis on published sources. --kingboyk (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Your part on 2010 is very biased; it sounds as if the decision was purely made by the Lib Dems, with a clear choice between the Conservatives and Labour. Why is it not mentioned that together the Labour and the LibDems did not have an overall majority, thus making it far harder to make an arrangement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.176.13 (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Have added a bunch of citation tags to the 2010 paragraph and staarted attempting to clean up the language, then gave up as the entire paragraph needs rewriting to take in account actual facts, which a) I don't have time for and b) am worried about my bias-I am a Lib Dem member, remain one and followed the talks closely so NPOV is difficult. The mention of Littlewood as a specific is laughable-he has zero influence at that sort of level, adn the idea that the LDs changed their position on deficit reduction when Govt policy is close to spot on what the LDs proposed in the manifesto, even if cuts are in different areas, is simply factually wrong. MatGB (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2011 (UTC)MatGB

The section on 2015 is unsatisfactory. Isnt there a difference between an encyclopaedia and political speculation? Apart from anything else, in a political situation that is changing by the day, is this supposed to be up to the minute, or fairly recent, or what?Unraed (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)unraed