graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,344
|
Post by graham on Jun 18, 2023 22:35:01 GMT
Labour didn't want it though, they wouldn't deal (that's not to say some of them were very keen, but some other senior figures didn't agree with any kind of deal and wanted to go into opposition). So the choice was Tories one way or the other, and we were damned either way... Plus the numbers didn't add up. A Lab+LD coalition would have been blown out of the water by the Conservatives at the first vote. People seem to think that wishes over-rule 315 < 650/2. But it could have been 316 + SNP +PLaid+ Grn + Sdlp +Lady Hermon - a total of 328. |
|
|
|
Post by uthacalthing on Jun 18, 2023 22:38:48 GMT
But not to quite the extent that the LDs supported Austerity and all the misery associated with it. can we have another go at defining just what austerity means? (Since a government spending more than they took in did not meet my definition of austerity) |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,344
|
Post by graham on Jun 18, 2023 23:00:32 GMT
But not to quite the extent that the LDs supported Austerity and all the misery associated with it. can we have another go at defining just what austerity means? (Since a government spending more than they took in did not meet my definition of austerity) That is very much an argument heard from the right wing of the Tory party - which fails to take account of the impact of automatic stabilisers. The LDs agreed to Income Tax cuts via Increased Personal Allowances which meant that further cuts in public spending were needed to compensate. Later the LDs acquiesced in Tory plans to introduce prohibitive fees fot those wishing to take cases to Employment Tribunals - a policy warmly welcomed by the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party. Fortunately the Courts intervened to prevent the implementation of such a wicked policy.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jun 18, 2023 23:17:58 GMT
Plus the numbers didn't add up. A Lab+LD coalition would have been blown out of the water by the Conservatives at the first vote. People seem to think that wishes over-rule 315 < 650/2. But it could have been 316 + SNP +PLaid+ Grn + Sdlp +Lady Hermon - a total of 328. A six-party (plus one independent) coalition with a tiny majority almost certainly wasn't viable in a country that's used to single-party rule. And nobody actually tried to negotiate one (Caroline Lucas explicitly said when asked that nobody had approached her). Whilst I think that the Lib Dems made all the wrong compromises in the coalition deal, I am perfectly willing to admit that the only arrangements that could have achieved the stable government that was thought to be necessary at the time were Con-Lab and Con-Lib. And Con-Lab was clearly politically impossible. |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,344
|
Post by graham on Jun 18, 2023 23:41:08 GMT
But it could have been 316 + SNP +PLaid+ Grn + Sdlp +Lady Hermon - a total of 328. A six-party (plus one independent) coalition with a tiny majority almost certainly wasn't viable in a country that's used to single-party rule. And nobody actually tried to negotiate one (Caroline Lucas explicitly said when asked that nobody had approached her). Whilst I think that the Lib Dems made all the wrong compromises in the coalition deal, I am perfectly willing to admit that the only arrangements that could have achieved the stable government that was thought to be necessary at the time were Con-Lab and Con-Lib. And Con-Lab was clearly politically impossible. Not that tiny a maority given that SF did not take their seats. A majority of circa 12 - and far from clear how DUP would have voted in that scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jun 19, 2023 4:59:11 GMT
if any comment in this thread is moronic, this one is much closer to being moronic than europeanlefty's comment. Since they returned to power at Westminster in 2010, the Tories have attempted to rig the boundary changes in their favour, brought in voter suppression laws, and brought in laws making it much more difficult for unions (many of which are affiliated to the Labour Party) to go on strike. Previously they attempted to make it more difficult for unions to affiliate to the Party (which backfired). In short, while we are nowhere near where we threaten to get in the USA, where Trumpites ridicule the very thought that voters would ever consider voting against their party, and cry foul at any election reverse - thank goodness - the Tories are perfectly prepared to rig the electoral machine to make it easier for them to carry on, and therefore prevent more Labour MPs from being elected. The idea that there is some sort of duopoly, where Labour & the Tories are presumably supposed to be actively working happily with each other to prevent smaller parties getting in, is so far removed from the truth as to be completely bonkers, the stuff of mad conspiracy theorists. In reality, during this parliament the opposition have been in a de facto informal pact not to tread on each other's toes in by-elections, and for the most part in the forthcoming general election too. It's a shame because Strontium Dog is capable of incisive & intelligent comments. Strontium Dog didn't seem to be implying that all Labour members, or even the party leadership, take the view that it would be better to have no third parties. He was responding to a post by a Labour member/supporter who was literally saying that it would be better for Labour to run a campaign that helps the Conservatives retain the seat than it would be to let the Lib Dems take the seat off the Tories. And his response was simply pointing out that it's not surprising to see that kind of reaction from members of this tribalist wing of Labour (albeit not in the most tactful way). Most of us who have been active in smaller parties (at least in England and Wales) have come across this kind of Labour supporter who are far more hostile towards us than they are toward the Conservatives (even when they direct their worst rhetoric at the Conservatives). If anything in this thread is moronic it's the apparent claim that this kind of Labour supporter doesn't exist when Labour supporters in this very thread have expressed exactly that view.
Are there Labour supporters who’d run a campaign with the goal of thwarting a gain by another party over the Conservatives? Of course. Are there Labour supporters who would vote for a Labour candidate in a hopeless cause rather than vote tactically against a Conservative? Of course. Are there supporters of other progressive parties who take similar positions? Yes, in my experience. The bit that can be either entertaining or exasperating, depending on circumstances and mood is when parties present their entirely rational, pragmatic choices in sanctimonious terms. That’s a trait not entirely foreign to any political party but has always seemed rather more prevalent in one than the others. |
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 19, 2023 6:20:18 GMT
Nick Clegg did it for self interest, not party interest or Britain's interest.
Britain would have recovered in a similar fashion under Brown as it did under Cameron, there was fag paper difference between the parties in terms of how they would have run the economy back then. The one thing Nick Clegg backing the Tories in 2010 caused was Brexit, so well done on saving Britain that way Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg.
Labour didn't want it though, they wouldn't deal (that's not to say some of them were very keen, but some other senior figures didn't agree with any kind of deal and wanted to go into opposition). So the choice was Tories one way or the other, and we were damned either way...
There are always other options.
Confidence and supply rather than coalition or another election, but that would probably have meant less Liberal Democrat seats so wasn't an option for Nick Clegg, who wanted to be in governement more than anything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 19, 2023 6:22:04 GMT
The one thing Nick Clegg backing the Tories in 2010 caused was Brexit, so well done on saving Britain that way Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg. [/div][/quote] by sitting on Corbyn's front bench and supporting him, Starmer did more than anyone to facilitate Brexit. [/quote][/div]
----------------------------
All politicians of all parties caused Brexit by their decisions over time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Defenestrated Fipplebox on Jun 19, 2023 6:29:07 GMT
Nick Clegg did it for self interest, not party interest or Britain's interest.
Britain would have recovered in a similar fashion under Brown as it did under Cameron, there was fag paper difference between the parties in terms of how they would have run the economy back then.
The one thing Nick Clegg backing the Tories in 2010 caused was Brexit, so well done on saving Britain that way Liberal Democrats and Nick Clegg.
Hmm. Broadly I agree with your point about economic policy and economic recovery - or at least, there's a sight less difference between what the Coalition actually did (as opposed to what Osborne would have liked to have done) and what Brown and Darling said they'd do than Labour has made out ever since. But that being so, how was Clegg going into coalition with Cameron rather than with Brown a matter of personal gain? Clegg gets to be the main junior partner and probable Deputy PM (or, say, Foreign Sec) either way, and the economic policy is (you say) identical. The only difference is that the govt gets a working majority rather than a minority govt or a bare majority if the nationalists could have been shepherded into a coalition. So how is choosing the option that forms a working govt a matter of personal gain rather than national interest?
Because he wanted to be in government.
The national interest could have been served by another election, but Nick Clegg wanted government for him, without any Liberal Democrat policies in reality, just Tory ones. Nick Clegg sold the Liberal Democrats out for position. It's why I originally said progressive politics is a figment of the imagination, because politicians will put themeselves first.
Nick Clegg was my MP, he was always about photo-ops more than substance, I have a very low opinion of the man, which may colour my views somewhat.
|
|
|
|
Post by markgoodair on Jun 19, 2023 7:07:49 GMT
Hmm. Broadly I agree with your point about economic policy and economic recovery - or at least, there's a sight less difference between what the Coalition actually did (as opposed to what Osborne would have liked to have done) and what Brown and Darling said they'd do than Labour has made out ever since. But that being so, how was Clegg going into coalition with Cameron rather than with Brown a matter of personal gain? Clegg gets to be the main junior partner and probable Deputy PM (or, say, Foreign Sec) either way, and the economic policy is (you say) identical. The only difference is that the govt gets a working majority rather than a minority govt or a bare majority if the nationalists could have been shepherded into a coalition. So how is choosing the option that forms a working govt a matter of personal gain rather than national interest? Because he wanted to be in government.
The national interest could have been served by another election, but Nick Clegg wanted government for him, without any Liberal Democrat policies in reality, just Tory ones. Nick Clegg sold the Liberal Democrats out for position. It's why I originally said progressive politics is a figment of the imagination, because politicians will put themeselves first. Nick Clegg was my MP, he was always about photo-ops more than substance, I have a very low opinion of the man, which may colour my views somewhat.
The British electorate would have punished the Liberal Democrats for forcing a second unnecessary election. Clegg did he right thing by for the first time in generations made Liberals relevant in government decision making . Lessons have been learnt from our time in government. Next time there is a hung parliament it will take weeks if not months of detailed negotiations with potential coalition partners before a government is formed. |
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Jun 19, 2023 7:16:31 GMT
But it could have been 316 + SNP +PLaid+ Grn + Sdlp +Lady Hermon - a total of 328. A six-party (plus one independent) coalition with a tiny majority almost certainly wasn't viable in a country that's used to single-party rule. And nobody actually tried to negotiate one (Caroline Lucas explicitly said when asked that nobody had approached her). Whilst I think that the Lib Dems made all the wrong compromises in the coalition deal, I am perfectly willing to admit that the only arrangements that could have achieved the stable government that was thought to be necessary at the time were Con-Lab and Con-Lib. And Con-Lab was clearly politically impossible. Not only were there not the numbers, Labour didn't want it. David Laws painted the picture in his book 22 days in May. Labour met the Lib Dems to see if a coalition was possible. Ed Balls dropped a Labour manifesto on the table, saying if you want a coalition, sign up to this. One of the Lib Dem team picked it up and thumbed through to the page on electoral reform and asked, would you implement this in full? It took a whole day of negotiation to get them to implement their own policy with no changes. Labour didn't want coalition. |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jun 19, 2023 7:17:24 GMT
Anyway, back to Somerton in 2023 please…
|
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Jun 19, 2023 7:22:33 GMT
Anyway, back to Somerton in 2023 please… If the writ is moved this week, when is the likely by-election date? |
|
|
|
Post by LDCaerdydd on Jun 19, 2023 7:23:26 GMT
It could be snuck in for the 20th July, but probably the 27th
|
|
|
|
Post by philvn on Jun 19, 2023 7:41:08 GMT
It could be snuck in for the 20th July, but probably the 27th [ Or sneaked? |
|
|
|
Post by AdminSTB on Jun 19, 2023 8:07:21 GMT
It could be snuck in for the 20th July, but probably the 27th [ Or sneaked? Snuck has better euphony, I think. |
|
bigfatron
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,960
Member is Online
|
Post by bigfatron on Jun 19, 2023 8:07:56 GMT
can we have another go at defining just what austerity means? (Since a government spending more than they took in did not meet my definition of austerity) That is very much an argument heard from the right wing of the Tory party - which fails to take account of the impact of automatic stabilisers. The LDs agreed to Income Tax cuts via Increased Personal Allowances which meant that further cuts in public spending were needed to compensate. Later the LDs acquiesced in Tory plans to introduce prohibitive fees fot those wishing to take cases to Employment Tribunals - a policy warmly welcomed by the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party. Fortunately the Courts intervened to prevent the implementation of such a wicked policy.
The increases to personal allowances were pushed through to replace the Tories’ planned abolition of Inheritance Tax - it was replacing a tax cut for the wealthy with a tax cur for everyone except the wealthy… so I remain all in favour. On a broader point, I really wish the Lib Dems had not gone into coalition - I was not a member at that point but I hope that I would have opposed it. I think confidence and supply was the way to go. Unfortunately we would have been damned as’putting the country at risk’ had we not enabled a stable government given the circumstances - so damned either way… |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Jun 19, 2023 8:51:56 GMT
That is very much an argument heard from the right wing of the Tory party - which fails to take account of the impact of automatic stabilisers. The LDs agreed to Income Tax cuts via Increased Personal Allowances which meant that further cuts in public spending were needed to compensate. Later the LDs acquiesced in Tory plans to introduce prohibitive fees fot those wishing to take cases to Employment Tribunals - a policy warmly welcomed by the Arbeit Macht Frei wing of the Tory party. Fortunately the Courts intervened to prevent the implementation of such a wicked policy.
The increases to personal allowances were pushed through to replace the Tories’ planned abolition of Inheritance Tax - it was replacing a tax cut for the wealthy with a tax cur for everyone except the wealthy… so I remain all in favour. Yes, it wasn't a tax cut for the wealthy. But it also wasn't a tax cut for the poor. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 19, 2023 8:54:46 GMT
Increasing the Income Tax personal allowance is one of those policies which mostly benefit high earners, but which are always described as though they benefit low earners. It's usually a deliberate deception.
|
|
|
|
Post by woollyliberal on Jun 19, 2023 9:15:18 GMT
It's done. He's been sent to Northstead.
|
|
