Abandoning all your social-democratic principles in favour of Tory-lite policies, then turning round and saying “Well at least our rosettes aren’t blue”, is something only the [Labour / LD - delete as applicable] Party is allowed to do, and it’s a shocking betrayal when it’s done by the [LD / Labour] Party.

Is it not time people considered what skills are needed by employers in order to maximise their opportunities in life?

So you, presumably from insider knowledge, say ‘all but a tiny handful’.

Without access to those internal discussions, I would have said ‘only Simon Hughes’.

Interesting contrast in perspectives.

Here’s another thing. The whole budget and coalition situation is less about some grand debate over the size of the state, and more about the size of the budget deficit.

If Labour had really been about a substantially bigger state, they would have raised the taxes to pay for it. Borrowing and spending are the easy parts – raising the taxes is the hard part.

You agree with that, I agree with that. But not everyone does, and in particular the libertarian wing of the Lib Dem’s don’t.

They just don’t get, at either a rational or gut level, how economic changes play out in terms of consequences for liberty as well as welfare, and how that then spirals back round with either virtue or viciousness.

If your economic model is a poor match for reality, the best of intentions mean little.

If that view is not entirely wrong, that’s going to be evidence to anyone with eyes to see in a few years. But for people to recognise it when it is in front of their eyes, it needs to be said now.

The Liberal Party? I didn’t know they were involved in the coalition.

This time it the old one between negative freedoms (“freedom from”) and positive freedoms (“freedom to”). Now I know the philosophers love to contrast them and regard them as opposites but in reality it’s nothing of the sort. Certainly those societies who claim to concentrate on the former, usually manage those freedoms only for a small affluent elite. And those who claim to go for prosperity for all, usually end up with just for a small affluent elite.

The truth is the two types of freedom reinforce each other. Equality spreads the ability to make the negative freedoms meaningful. Those democratic freedoms in turn help the relieving of want and poverty. That’s why India had famines under the British, but hasn’t had major ones since 1947.

Of course there are tensions between the two kinds of freedom, but then there are between different freedoms of the same type.

Isaiah Berlin eat my shorts.

I agree, actually. I am venting a little here because it’s a good place for it and partly because I am interested to see if there is a solid Lib Dem justification for their behaviour so far (apparently not).

However, away from here I am fortunate enough (if by ‘fortunate’ you mean ‘spent a great deal of time and effort making sure I was’) to be in a position to actually try to, if not do something about those issues that bother me, at least highlight them.

But whilst, like you, I felt the ideal Government this term would be a Lib/Lab coalition, I do think it’s necessary not just to tell Labour voters to tone down the rhetoric but to remind that in a few months, the Lib Dems really do need to get Labour onside for the reform vote instead of, as the poster upstream is doing, taking Labour goodwill for granted.

Because before the election I thought ‘electoral reform – that’s a great idea as it will give the Lib Dems more sway in national government’

Now I think ‘electoral reform – it’ll give the Lib Dems more sway in national government. Not sure if I want that now, actually’

I really don’t think they realise that might be a problem – or if they do, they’re covering it up by suggesting that changing viewpoint might be someone – anyone – else’s fault but theirs.

Ken: In short, the Lib Dems did betray me and people like me. They led me to believe that they shared our vision of social justice, but they didn’t.

First, as a Libdem voter who made a big song and dance about it, you’re not the only one appalled by the budget.

I’m just saying this. On an emotional level you have a right to be annoyed. Although if you thought they shared that vision then perhaps the Labour hierarchy is more to blame for not doing more to keep them on side.

In about 2-3 years time I think Libdem patience will wear thin when they realise that they’re allied with a bunch of crooks. But they have to find out that themselves. Labourites screaming at them won’t really further that process – it actually makes later rapprochement (which I want) more difficult.

So, you list 7 right wing measures, all, in the classic US libertarian style: place authoritarian restrictions on the tax-funded part of the economy, while (completely coincidentally, of course) almost all serve to reduce the chance of conviction after due process of economic criminals: fraudsters, tax evaders and so forth.

Nonsense.

So, you list 7 right wing measures, all, in the classic US libertarian style: place authoritarian restrictions on the tax-funded part of the economy, while (completely coincidentally, of course) almost all serve to reduce the chance of conviction after due process of economic criminals: fraudsters, tax evaders and so forth.

Perhaps you have a model of the world where somewhere in the heart of the machinery of government there is a button marked ‘fuck people’s shit up’. And the art of good government lies almost entirely in not pressing that button.

With the LibCons, not only have you got what you voted for, it is currently popular, and has a lot of journalistic and blogger support. So it is hardly surprising you don’t feel betrayed.

Obviously, being a sincere right-winger, you believe those right-wing measures will work, serve to make society better (or at least more to your liking).

The point about political disagreements is that those of us who disagree with you _don’t think that will be the case_. Transfer of power, in the US style, from elected politicians to the multiply-lawyered rich will not, in our view, lead to increases of freedom or welfare.

Those of us who disagree with you (variously and clumsily called left-liberals, social justice liberals, or social democrats) predict that what you will see is an increase in the numbers of those deliberately held in punitive unemployment ‘pour encourager les autres’. We think it would be unprecedented if that did not lead to increases in the crime figures, bigger police budgets, and more abuses by stretched police forces. Just as every prison has a punishment block, every society with imposed mass unemployment will have to have something worse.

In the US, 3.2% of the adult populace is in jail. Most of them are probably guilty; even if all of them were, that’s still simply wrong.

It is quite likely that if something like that situation comes about here, the overstretched police will lose all institutional ability to adopt new progressive measures, leading to a total disconnect between high-minded official policy and what actually happens on the street and in cells.

Now maybe we are wrong, and in 5 or 10 or 15 years time, you will be able to point at some newly emergent facts that will change most of our minds, with only a few stubborn holdouts denying what most feel is self-evident.

Or maybe vice versa.

Sunny talks of political tactics, and on those terms I think he is plain wrong. For 10 or more years now, New Labour have been playing ‘poll and rush’: work out where this weeks political consensus is, and rush to agree with it. Whether or not that involves a long ball that only a few unusually skilful politicians can deliver accurately.

The limits of those tactics have become thoroughly exposed, the way to defend against them made obvious to even the weakest team, and in any case Beckham has retired.

It’s time for a change. Treat the truth like a good team does the ball: something to keep possession of, not to be kicked away. Don’t say things you don’t think are true, just because they are the only things that might lead to a scoring chance right this moment.

Build slowly, make the opposition run around, have them come to think the next goal is just a matter of time.

What I actually got was a Government which considers high unemployment – coincidentally disproportionately spread amongst the kind of people I grew up with, live amongst and work with – to be an acceptable price to meet its own goals. I can’t accept that.

Now, I fully expected a Conservative Government to do this – not because they are Teh Eeevul, but because their priorities are different. I had hoped, however, that the Lib Dems might care a bit more about this than they do, but so far not a cheep from anyone in that party about the potential impact of unemployment. When David Willetts (who I do rate, to be fair, although I’d be a little more comfortable if he actually looked a bit more like acting on the contents of his own book) cares more about a key aspect of social justice than, it appears, your entire party, members and activists combined, then I think it’s fair to say that you’re not a party likely to convince me of your good intentions.

In short, the Lib Dems did betray me and people like me. They led me to believe that they shared our vision of social justice, but they didn’t. I’ve no problem calling them out for it because people – hundreds of thousands of people – are going to lose their livelihoods, quite soon, and the Lib Dems are going to be doing it.

And if you can’t call people out for that, what can you call them out for?

Across all the parties, yes even the Conservatives, there are different opinions about the best mix of private and public provision and in what areas. There are also views about the right mix in the economy between sectors. But – just as not everyone in Germany has a doctorate in Mechanical Engineering and not everyone in America works in McDonalds – it’s a continuum of views.

Now I happen to believe that the coalition is falling victim to its own rhetoric; though it’s basically fantasies about “waste” rather than the “small state” which is fuelling the delusions about cuts and their consequences. I also think all governments of the last thirty plus years have treated Big Business and the City like some overgrown spoilt brats whose every whim should be pampered. (Ironically some of the whims were responsible for a lot of the above “waste”).

But that doesn’t mean that I think the current lot are planning to abolish the welfare state. In fact the main problem seems to be they have most of the illusions of their predecessors.

My primary motivation in the last election wasn’t economic at all. I voted in favour of the Great Repeal Bill, the right to public assembly, the end to Control Orders, the primacy of Trial by Jury, the removal of innocent people from the DNA database, the end of internment without trial, the reduction of of pre-charge detention to 14 days, etc., etc. I voted in favour of a fairer voting system. I voted against an authoritarian government, and in favour of a liberal society.

I’d love to have a Lib-Lab coalition, which took Labour’s caring side and the Liberal’s dedication to freedom, but sadly it wasn’t to be. But you couldn’t have paid me to vote for Labour at the last election.

True, if by ‘socially liberal’ you mean ‘under the age of 50 and not racist’.

‘and there are economically social liberals within Libdems’

And there are non-racists in the BNP. They are just there by mistake.

Engagement with those people means persuading them to abandon their current tribal affiliation, and back a political grouping that does better match their views. Labour isn’t a socialist party, and hasn’t been for a long time. So what could reasonably stop a believer in social democracy from backing it?

The big, zero-sum, pick one-and-only-one-answer question in politics is simple: on the whole, all things being equal and all things considered, should the UK should strive to be more like Germany (high tax, high productivity)? Or should it become more like the US (low services, low costs)?

You can’t really have a coalition, or political party, without consensus about that fundamental issue. Every last little detail will have a different right answer depending on which model you assume will be followed.

So for anyone who thinks a free-market economy works best when supported and enabled by the provision of universal and effective public services, they should be supporting Labour, or something leftwards of it.

For anyone who thinks a market economy is only free when taxes are as low as can be arranged, then they should be voting Conservative, or something rightwards of it.

For anyone who wants to ensure they don’t end up accidentally voting for a government that comes into power, there are a wide range of choices.

It’s just Lib Dem isn’t one of them any more.

This is a rubbish, and politically naive. There are strong socially liberal elements within the Libdems, and there are economically social liberals within Libdems, who may be convinced by left-wing arguments more than Tory arguments.

The trick is to convince the party and its base than an alliance with the left offers more value than Tories, even if they don’t get everything they want. I’m not convinced they actually like the party of Nadine Dorries and Iain Duncan Smith and William Hague.

Secondly, we lost them because we’re not churning out interesting intellectual arguments. It’s just lazy sloganeering right now within the Labour party. And then there’s the tribalists who didn’t even want to join the Libdems in a coalition.

The Tories are pragmatic. They’ll do whatever it takes to get power. That is a big stumbling block.

I don’t get the betrayal argument. If you go swimming in the sea and a shark eats you, you’d have to have a pretty unusual set of expectations of shark behaviour to consider that a betrayal.

Lib Dems always have been a right-wing party, a party that considers any kind of compulsory taxation to be an assault on civil liberties. A party representing the interests of those with money in the bank, second homes, jobs that are as much something to do as a required source of income.

They were just in opposition. The job of an opposition to criticise, so they did that, sometimes well. It’s a completely unrealistic expectation to think that means they opposed any of the things they criticised, would not do the same or worse if it was them making or influencing the decisions.

Firstly, the Libdems ran on a specifically neo-liberal economic consensus (as did Labour of course), which was to the right of the party. Most members went along, they’re loyal.

Now they’re in power. Broadly, they’re willing to compromise. This is made easier by the fact that it’s a coalition and both sides can blame the other for not getting their way.

It’s legitimate to ask whether accusing them of betrayal is actually right, given that the biggest stone you can throw is VAT. Most of the rest Labour was also eventually planning to implement.

But my broader and more important point is about tactics.

Right now Libdems won’t listen to lefties, and if we want to convince wavering voters then turning our fire on the Libdems is a waste of time (they are junior partners).

Screaming betrayal might feel good but actually it has no material impact on anything. SImon Hughes will be slapped down and told to shut up. It’s only a few years down the line that the patience of Libdems will start to wear thin and they’ll be more willing to listen to left-wing critiques.

But Luis also says:
but again I don’t see either you or Sunny really making an argument about what kind of message is going to be persuasive with voters,

I made this exact point recently, and have been repeatedly on Twitter. I’ll expand on it next week.

I just think the ‘betrayal’ card is just one long angry rant that has little strategic value, doesn’t convince Libdems or wavering voters, and is a waste of time.

We should be thinking about proper intellectual and strategic responses. Just moaning is boring. And lefties do far too much of it.,

Again, you’re making it sound like AV is a Lib Dem policy that they’re going to have to ‘persuade’ Labour supporters to go along with. AV was a Labour manifesto pledge whereas the Lib Dems wanted STV. It is the Lib Dems that have had to compromise on electoral reform and, with the help of the Conservatives, may end up delivering a policy that was in the Labour manifesto but not in either of the coalition parties’ manifestos. What is there to do to persuade Labour supporters to back their own policy unless they are only opposing reform to score a party political point against the Lib Dems out of some weird kind of self-defeating revenge?

I didn’t get the point in your first paragraph. It seemed to imply that Labour had no ideas … ?

As for conviction to show the country how opposition could be done: they’ve done plenty of that for decades haven’t they? Lib Dems in opposition have been overshadowed by the larger parties desperately trying to exaggerate their differences in petty spats. In government they’ve already demonstrated their influence in a big way in the coalition document and in a small way in the budget.

I *would* personally like to see some credible opposition to coalition policies and would prefer a more progressive budget to what was announced. In an ideal world I’d like to see a left-liberal alliance. A prerequisite for that, however, is dropping the cheap, tribal point scoring approach (and hoping that the media do too) and pursuing individual policy points with multi-party support (as Roger Mexico (41) advised). The Lib Dems aren’t contractually bound to vote with the Conservatives on everything – those areas where they are are listed in the coalition agreement. If Labour can table small, realistic, progressive amendments to policy and can lay off the “B” word for five minutes (or, indeed, “class traitor”) then I don’t see why the Lib Dems can’t support those amendments in the Commons.

Actually Labour are representing my opposition opinion properly if they’re currently calling the Lib Dems a bunch of spineless opportunist hypocritical bullshitters. Not only that, but they’re also representing a lot of other voters, including some Tories and even some Lib Dems.

Also, one thing about being in Government, Lee, is that along with the offices, you also get ‘responsibility’ for policies.

So, just as as a test, when George Osborne soaks the poor, and Nick Clegg goes along with it, who has just soaked the poor?

1. The Government?
2. The Opposition?

It’s not a difficult question, but it appears that you keep getting the answer wrong, and that is an excellent reason why some people are really not liking your party just at the moment.

It may be less than the whole truth, but it is labour government that made this bed, and trying to shout at lib dems who don’t have a majority say in the coalition as a response is clearly politicking rather than representing the opposition opinion of the nation properly

As an outsider I haven’t noticed much insulting of Labour supporters from the Lib Dems. What has been attacked is the actions of the not-long departed Labour government; often actions that Labour supporters here attacked just as vigorously.

Does Jim somehow imagine that the heartless and bureaucratic invalidity system he describes has magically appeared in the last seven weeks? Indeed the Budget actually promised to scrap a similar system for Disability Living Allowance. (Yeah I’m cynical too)

A lot of the attacks on the Lib Dems (bizarrely combined with respect for the Tories) seem to be motivated by guilt at going round with Polly Toynbee’s peg on their nose for the last 13 years and unwilling to face the consequences of their actions.

Actually I suspect most Labour supporters and activists don’t share these views. The widespread rejection of Ed Balls, the most tribal of the candidates in the leadership race, is a sign of that.

Those on the left have a choice. They can sit back in comfortable opposition, striking attitudes about the evils of the coalition. Or they can work on various campaigns trying to get support from across the political spectrum (yes including many Tories) on issues such as the IB system Jim described. A hung parliament will make this easier than in the past.