Good luck with that, nah, seriously. There’s a nice thread going on political betting about what this co-alition are trying to do and, well, frankly, I’m not impressed.

I had quite a few dealings with CCHQ before the election and most of the time it was definately a case of the chump knowing less than me (not bigging myself up or owt, but if you hang around places like this, well, you’re gonna pick up the wrong kinda people!!) and the crap about housing policy, the crap about Lansley & his back of a fag packet minor reform of the NHS – although articles like this in the student rag don’t bloody help –

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/01/nhs-trusts-private-patients

but the AV thing, the Turkey thing etc. That’s before Chris Huhne goes off on another rant.

I would defo like to see an organized and erudite debate on this but, I fear, as is per usual, it’ll get drowned out in tribalism, accusation, and general ‘My dad’s harder tha your dad’ crap. Shame really.

Anywho – it’s summer, you would have thought that they’d shut the hell up but no, let’s just bounce the country into council house deregulation – smart move, genuis – wanker! Kids doing adult jobs is always a bit of a risk.

For all this to stop all it takes is for Lie Dems to just say “NO”

But at the moment the Lie Dems are enjoying their moment in the sun.

Good luck Lie Dems when you have pushed through all the Conservative right wing social engineering and then the tories turn round with their friends in the Murdoch media and attack you for not being right wing enough. Good luck trying to sell that to your voters..

Who are the Lie Dems?

I really don’t see what people are trying to achieve with all this ‘Nu Liabore’, ConDemnation stuff. Surely it just suggests that you’ve got nothing of substance to say?

At a recent council election, I voted for the Lib Dems mainly because the Labour leaflet that got shoved through my door referred to them as the Fib Dems throughout. I find it hard to vote for a candidate who apparently thinks that their consitituents can be won over by a pun that would be weak by the standards of the Beano.

There have already been a couple of hurried attempts to put together a national coalition to fight the cuts, which culminated in two separate but very derisory protests outside parliament on budget day. This new one does seem to be properly organised, plus there are now countless local groups around the country, including one in my area (Haringey) started by local anarchist but now involving the SWP, the Socialist Party and a number of other groups and community organisations. We are organising a demonstration outside the council budget meeting in September. We need to start now both locally and nationally putting pressure on council and MPs not to vote for these cuts, especially since David Cameron himself has now admitted that the Tories and their very junior Orange Book partners have no intention of uncutting the cuts once they’ve cut (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/03/david-cameron-public-sector-cuts-permanent), or in other words the cuts are *not* related to the deficit, they are ideological in nature and have to be opposed by as many people and organisations as possible, starting right now.

The question of timing for the trade unions is a tough one, because while I suspect they themselves don’t want the anti-cuts movement to be seen as purely a public sector union mobilisation, they have to defend their members, and realistically that’s going to need pretty solid public sector strike action to show the government that public sector workers won’t be pushed over easily. Given that job losses are already kicking in and will only grow over time, public sector staff need to see that their unions are ready to organise and fight for them. Hence the call for a demo this year – to give staff confidence to fight the cuts at workplace level. If the unions take a less visible approach, their members may be inclined to just negotiate the best pay off with their employer.

Weighing against that, of course, are the points you’ve made about the public-facing side of the campaign and how it plays out. Hence the dilemma.

I don’t have any easy solutions, but a couple of thoughts around this area:

- it’s possible that by the time we have convincing data showing the cuts are damaging the economy, a lot of jobs will have gone (because rising unemployment is one of the key indicators here). Those jobs need to be fought for before the axe swings on them
- it’s easier to argue the case for adult care, or the fire brigade, or for the Connexions youth service (as Unison is doing) than it is to argue the case for the Public Sector (capital P, capital S), and I do think industrial action in defence of these individual services is an easier sell than you might think – even at this stage. This can then feed into a broader campaign defending public services (as opposed to a Nimby approach of ‘don’t cut us, cut them!’)

charlesdance

I think Sunny’s comments relate more to the timing of national campaigning than local campaigns, which as you say need to happen immediately. I do agree that even at a national level, we have to move now – the question is by what methods, and when

Is the goal to stop (moderate) the cuts or to make government policies unpopular with voters?

[How effective are strikes as a weapon against job cuts? Does anybody know of any research measuring the extent to which strikes reduce job losses?]

Marches never shift policy Sunny, but they will shift opinion. A building tempo of action, leading up to a serious and prolonged, co-ordinated strike is what is needed. I’m not annoyed that the unions aren’t all out on strike at the moment – I am annoyed that there’s no co-ordinated plan to build the requisite tempo of engagement, to push towards mass politics.

Saying that unions shouldn’t be gearing up for anything ‘major’ this year because they’ll only pull out committed activists is just about the most stupid thing I’ve ever heard. It’s only by relying on the committed activists, and pushing them towards forms of mass engagement (like, shock, horror, marches) that you get everyone angry. Some anaemic war of words only isn’t going to get the job done.

Luis E
I do believe there has been no debate on the cuts. If marches highlight the cuts and are they going to be counter productive. Why not ?
I actually think the Labour party should publish the cuts they were going to make and back the government on those.
If the other cuts are driven by ideological grounds or are unnessary that should be the line on the ground.
At the moment the government are winning the hearts and mind, mainly because
they have most the press, with the exception of the mirror, and broadcasters (the BBC is like a cowering child).
Bringing the debate to streets is good for democracy.

“I actually think the Labour party should publish the cuts they were going to make and back the government on those.
If the other cuts are driven by ideological grounds or are unnessary that should be the line on the ground.”

Oooh, I agree completely. Otherwise it’s just going to look like opportunistic sniping whatever they do.

In fact, I think we’d have a healthier system if the two main parties hadn’t developed this tendency to attack each other on every issue, regardless of whether they actually disagree or not, merely on basic principles. We’d have a better working relationship in Parliament and it would allow a more honest debate on issues across the board.

“We’d have a better working relationship in Parliament and it would allow a more honest debate on issues across the board.”

I’d much prefer to see a much *worse* working relationship in parliament, not to mention (right) outside it!

“I’d much prefer to see a much *worse* working relationship in parliament, not to mention (right) outside it!”

In this particular parliament, sure! But I guess the point is that were it not for the way the Tories and Labour treat each other, the battle lines would never have been drawn like that in the first place.

Remember that after the election, when everyone was talking about Lib-Con coalitions and rainbow coalitions and minority government, nobody mentioned the concept of a Con-Lab coalition. It was so laughable that it didn’t even really enter anyone’s consciousness, and rightly so. But theoretically there was no reason it couldn’t happen, only this background of mutual loathing.

May I firstly highly recommend reading the following reports:

Compass – In place of cuts [http://clients.squareeye.com/uploads/compass/documents/Compass%20in%20place%20of%20cuts%20WEB.pdf]

Nick Isles – Life at the top [http://www.theworkfoundation.com/assets/docs/publications/164_Life_at_the_Top.pdf]

Then go out and bust some chops

Surely the Resistance isn’t against all spending commitments, even the Trident replacement?

For once, I thought Tony Blair had it spot on in his personal manifesto for the Sedgefield consituency for the election in June 1983, not for those times, of course – when the cold war was still to be won – but for now:

Labour believes in defence and in NATO membership but we don’t need dangerous and costly Trident and Cruise missiles, which just escalate the nuclear arms race.

Trident and Cruise missiles didn’t prevent 9/11 or 7/7.

@7 Luis Enrique: “[How effective are strikes as a weapon against job cuts? Does anybody know of any research measuring the extent to which strikes reduce job losses?]”

It’s all about the unknowns, innit? It might be possible to analyse union/company disputes and say whether a strike affected the number of job losses positively or negatively. Retired union officials and company executives are occasionally candid about what was offered, and the final result is known.

But a strike at company X impacts negotiations at company Y. The unions at Y do not necessarily need to go on strike to make their case, and company Y executives generate offers accordingly. The confrontation is thus settled without a strike. No strike occurred but jobs were lost. How do you quantify those losses?

Smart question, Luis.

Hello,

I basically agree with Sunny here. We need to fight nationally. But it’s particularly crucial that we fight locally – that we build from the ground up. This means that national efforts should be about providing resources for local groups – briefing sheets, videos for public meetings making the economic case simply, etc. That’s some of the stuff that we’ve been trying to do over at http://www.noshockdoctrine.org.uk – though definitely more if this stuff is needed, and we need to get better at talking to each other…

Thanks,

Adam

Sunny has it right. The only effective way to fight the cuts is to get the middle classes to object to them. At the moment they are happy to give Cameron some slack, but that will change..

Who is it that are the most reliable voters? The over 50s. These are the people who the Tories most rely on. If the grey middle class vote appears to turn against the Tories then Tory MPs will start to get restless. We have to show how the cuts will affect the middle classes.

For example, a survey published today in Pulse says that most GPs say that they will be unable to provide out of hours service and the money that Lansley will be providing is inadequate. This is an issue that will be important to the grey, middle class vote and we should make sure that they know about it.

The crunch point will be next April. In the white paper it says this: “We will complete the separation of commissioning from provision by April 2011 and move as soon as possible to an “any willing provider” approach for community services, reducing barriers to entry by new suppliers.” (4.24)

Community services are district nurses, health visitors etc and “any willing provider” means privatisation, or being forced to become a “social enterprise”. Make no mistake, a “social enterprise” is a private company, so a nurse moving from a PCT to a SE will be moving from the public sector (NHS) to the private sector. At that point it will suddenly dawn upon them that their pension is an NHS pension and you need to be in the NHS to continue to contribute.

From what I’ve read about SEs, when they are set up the employee can still continue to contribute to the NHS pension scheme, but if they change job to another SE then they will lose that right. If community services are run by a private provider then the employees will not be able to contribute to the NHS pension scheme at all. Also, training will be the responsibility of the provider and as money gets tight they will push that onto the employee. So when the privatisation of community services starts there will be a lot of unhappy nurses.

I expect the RCN and the public sector unions who represent nurses to take action next April (or thereabouts) as the first privatisations start. Nurses have defeated Tory governments before, so expect some very rapid U-turns from Lansley or else a bitter battle.

The only problem I can see is that it is too close to May 2011, the council elections. It is clear that the LibDems will be wiped out in the council elections, but it is not so certain that the Tories will be affected. If there are 6 months of service cuts that will affect the grey middle classes before the council election then I would expect many Tory councillors to be ousted. A catastrophic result at the council elections will make Tory MPs very wary and Cameron – ever the opportunist – would make swift changes to reassure them. But that’s not going to be the case. And Tory losses in May 2012 is too late because the White Paper says that all of the changes in the NHS will be in place by April 2012.

Sunny -

I just read the article you have written for Next Left. Very well argued and these are bits I like best:

“The Labour party realised by the 90s that its core constituency wasn’t large enough to win power and not enough people wanted to fight a class war. They had aspirations and saw themselves as middle class, not working class, despite what sociologists might say.”

“The response to the cuts must be ‘people powered’ and not be a trade union led coalition. It has to be framed and developed as ordinary citizens trying to protect their local communities from this ideological assault. Otherwise the movement not only risks being caught in the sectarianism of the past, but will also be dismissed by the media and political classes as ‘vested interests’ that can be ignored.”

Brilliant.
***************************************************
Your arguments and framing of the question is far different from what Richard Seymour is saying. Everything in that article such as why the civil service should be allowed to be bloated – why downsizing civil service is a crime – and he is factually wrong about US politics. Bill Clinton did spend a lot of money in the right places and he did increase taxes for the richest and the corporations.

And where does the growth come from? Highlighting economists sitting pretty with their academic salaries and chucking out theories is not a good way of trying to bring people in. He is playing the class divide -

There are a lot of millionaires in Britain today who got there the hard way by building up businesses, by creating jobs and giving their lives in building those businesses through booms and busts – Richard Seymour’s article would piss all of them off and their employees – because most SMEs have excellent relationships between employers and employees especially in the new industries such as new media, online media, gaming and others. Those are the industries that offer us strategic advantage. So this entire approach of us vs them is what killed the left – and Seymour wants us to walk that path. Sorry, if I fnd it revolting.

I am very happy to go against stupid cuts and cuts that hurt us in the long term. And there are quite a few areas where there are areas of real concern about the Government’s policies – how are they supporting the growth? how are they forcing the banks to lend more to SMEs which employ around 70% of our workforce? Devolving power to local communities is excellent but to exercise those powers you need funding capabilities – where is the money coming from?

Those are issues and how the cuts affect local communities are valid as long as there are serious alternatives proposed by those who oppose it. And No we should just print the money argument please.

The Left should not allow itself to be hijacked by Socialist Workers Party’s ideals or strategies or even tactics – they would ensure the left is completely distrusted by the public.

Despite everything that has been said and done against both the Miliband brothers – yet the membership and the public at large want them to lead. That’s a strong message – we want centre left that focuses on providign not only a safety net but creating opportunities – a left that values talents and a left that inspires all of us to pay heed to the “better angels of our nature” – a left that believes in true progressive taxation and makes work pay.

And Richard Seymour calls Obama Imperialistic – well, politics is about a marriage between idealism and pragmatism – its not always what we want but what we can achieve.

It is not always what’s best for me or most populist but what’s the right call?

Seymour seems to me like someone who wants to antagonise everyone and challenge everyone to go against basic human instincts – no wonder he would always be on the side lines – because as they say in America he would have a hard time winning an election as a dog catcher.

Shamit, thanks.

Dave: It’s only by relying on the committed activists, and pushing them towards forms of mass engagement (like, shock, horror, marches) that you get everyone angry. Some anaemic war of words only isn’t going to get the job done.

Angry words might make you feel better, but I’m interested in getting results here. And my worry is that a repeat of the 80s won’t win results only get the same people angry. And the Tories know very well how to ignore people who aren’t going to vote for them anway.

Marches never shift policy Sunny, but they will shift opinion.

If that were the case there would be universal opposition to Afghanistan/Iraq and Israeli govt policies. There isn’t, because a lot of the time small-scale and medium scale marches just preach to the converted.

There’s only one way you’re going to get the coalition scared, on the backfoot and reverse their agenda – by getting their constituency angry. Right now those people are NOT angry, and if you start singing a tune that does not resonate with them – they’ll switch off.

Organising marches around the time those people are angry will make them join you. Doing it now won’t convince them and you’ll soon run out of steam.

My mates are floating voters. Are they angry about the cuts? No they’re not. They barely pay attention to all this stuff. Unless it hits home with them then we’re just whistling in the wind.

Surely the Resistance isn’t against all spending commitments, even the Trident replacement?

I doubt it’s against all cuts. But the argument isn’t about what cuts you make or don’t make. The argument is about how those cuts that are being made will and are hurting the economy.

“To get the Tories really on the back foot the left needs to get the middle classes angry” – oh, I’m sure some of them will be none to pleased once they learn how much it might cost to send their children to University – assuming there are still enough university places available to meet demand?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/7892525/Up-to-a-quarter-of-a-million-could-miss-out-on-university-places.html

Good grief, you don’t really expect a Respect/SWP type who calls himself “Lenin”, apparently without irony, to have anything useful to say, do you?

Still I’m all in favour of the left following that line!
(His incredibly tedious essay could be summed up in one word: STRIKE!)

Of course Shamit is exactly right.
Sunny’s strategic approach seems much more sensible.

cjcjc
“Of course Shamit is exactly right.
Sunny’s strategic approach seems much more sensible”

Now I am worried

It is all very well getting the middle classes angry (not that difficult for the Daily Mail reading sections) but how do you direct the anger. It is now, and will be for a few years yet, incredibly easy for Conservatives to agree with the anger, express regret but to say that there is no option due to Labour leaving them with no money and a huge defecit. So for the anger to work effectively, you have to convince people the cuts are not as necessary as they think, and here is where the danger is that those of an ecomonically left-wing bent might make assumptions that do not appeal to the middle classes who vote Conservative. Much of the anger about cuts is rooted in beliefs that they are bad for the economy in the present situation; this will need to be argued, not assumed, since people who voted Conservative presumably did not buy that line which was put about in the election. Even if they like the services, they may not think we can afford them remember. So the intellectual argument chosen has to be based not on your prejudices, but those of the target audience.

Above all though, any such arguments have to be prepared to defend themselves from counter-arguments about centralisation, state-control and a desire for big government. These are ideas that have entred the conciousness of many Conservative voters, and any campaign against cuts will face these attacks.

Hope those are helpful observations. Don’t agree with the aim of the campaign myself, but if it is worth doing, it is worth doing well.

“This has to be a movement and resistance by ordinary people trying to protect their local communities. These people will be have to be middle class, working class, well-off parents, single parents, etc etc. It can’t be just public sector workers and it can’t be just the traditional crowd.”

Yes….buit what happens if the masses when called don’t turn up?

Think through what happened with the announcement of the HB cut. Various people started the cry of how the vulnerable will be sleeping under bridges etc and then when the middle class, working class, well-off parents, single parents etc etc actually understood that some people (agreed, a very small number) were getting £100,000 a year or more in HB….that the cuts meant that people would *only* be able to get £20,400 a year now, then the general conclusion seemed to be “damn right too”.

I realise that you’re not going to take advice from the likes of me but what does happen if the majority think, yes, actually, you know, trimming back the excesses of the welfare state that have accreted over the last 13 (or even 60) years is a good idea?

I don’t think the Unions are capable of being controlled. They’ll jump on anything and whinge and bitch and use inappropriate language. All fair enough, but it’s been a helluva long time since the unions gave a toss about ‘their workers’. The unions are a fiefdom, a cabal, an intransigent, outdated, malfeasant, militant wing of a discredited wing of the Labour movement. When Labour can’t even get a lefty to stand as leader then there’s no way that the Tory party won’t spin it as a return to the 70′s.

The unions need to be put on a leash by lefties. Unite & Charlie Wheelen have made some proper enemies. Bob Crow & Tony Woodley are almost axiomatic – the former talks about general strikes whilst the Woodley seems to have got his head screwed on a bit and has the wit to be able to use the media as a vehicle for pragmatic consideration that workers are being shafted. Nobody likes to see workers being screwed, nobody. Tories love a fight when they perceive bullying is taking place (yeah, I believe it but I respect that you folks may take that as bollox).

I just don’t think this can be done in a rational manner – too many actors, too much vested interest, loads easier just to shout fascist or socialist or whatever and move on. Coulson’s gonna play this like an election – the forces of protectionism against those of realism. If I were a lefty, i’d concentrate on local campaigns, local cuts, local hospital wards etc etc. I think Labour’s legacy is acknowledged by those who work in the private sector and trying to appeal to an ideology is what lost you the election and also created Blair. If Labour are gonna be out for a generation – this is exactly how it starts.

“I don’t think the Unions are capable of being controlled. They’ll jump on anything and whinge and bitch and use inappropriate language”

So, Just like the institute of Directors , the CBI and tory farmers then.

It is only class war when the poor fight back, in tory eyes.

sally,

None of the CBI, IoD or ‘tory farmers’ (you are aware that farmers are individuals with a range of views? – Michael Eaves for example is presumably not a tory) were invoked in this argument, whilst unions were.

So Dick’s comments re unions are relevant and constructive. Yours don’t seem to be. If you notice, most of the ‘trolls’ on this thread have made comments about where the problems with Sunny’s proposals are, not against them. We like to see intelligent political debate, and in my case at least would like to see an effective and attractive opposition (I may not choose to vote for them, but I’d like to be able to think of it). So assuming this is a war between two gangs (even ignoring the fact that the CBI, IoD and National Farmers Union have not endorsed the cuts) falls into the mentality both Tim W and I warned against above. Sunny is suggesting taking an intelligent approach and not trying to put people off the message by relating it to them; comments like yours immediately alienate people and undermine good work.

Tories have an obsession about Unions. But the bottom line is that they are mostly British citizens who pay taxes here and live here, and work here. The Unions who they belong to have to account for every penny they give to a political party.

Contrast that to the shysters who fund your party. Many of them don’t pay tax here, in some cases don’t live here, so spare me the crocodile tears.

The biggest middle-class revolt in British history, against the Iraq War, failed to change government policy.

Why do you think this “coalition” would work?

The time to win these sorts of battles is round election time. It will take years before the middle classes feel the cuts in the way you want them to.

If you didn’t want the cuts, you should’ve made sure Labour got re-elected. Hold on.. what’s that you say? Labour would’ve cut lots anyway? Worse than Thatcher, according to Alastair Darling, Labour Chancellor?

Uh. You see the problem? You have the same people calling for resistance to cuts after the election, who were supporting a party that wanted to bring in cuts before the election. That’s why Labour and its supporters have no credibility.

I think the cuts are at the wrong speed and intensity, but there is plenty that should be cut and plenty that should be localised.

@29. Sure the unions are accountable and perfectly legitimate in voicing both their concerns and their disagreement with their respective trades/professions etc. I think what I was cautioning was the rogue Union (Leader), the kneejerk and immediate response to go on strike because they don’t like something. Ofcourse, it’s their DUTY to oppose things that affect their members pay and T&C’s but they also have a responsibility to act with due dilligence and hear the policies out.

I was unfortunate enough to be involved in this academies thingy and because it was so back of a fag packet and the DoE is run like a salmonella infected whelk stall, no bugger knew anything and yet, and yet, the NUT went straight for the jugular and opposed everything immediately, with threats, scare stories, hyperbole, bombast and inaccuracy. They cared not a jot about schools paying over the odds for procurement, that Head Teachers had to project manage the BSF programmes themselves as the LA’s were useless, that standards were slipping in certain schools etc etc. I’m all for workers rights and stuff but i’m much more concerned with getting the job done.

If the unions want this to be a fight then fine. But, rationally, morally, it should be their intention to work with employers to amend working practices, to aim for efficiencies, to forstall the inevitable and try and keep their members employed over the longer term.

@blanco “I think the cuts are at the wrong speed and intensity, but there is plenty that should be cut and plenty that should be localised.”

so you agree with Labour, then?

31. Dick the Prick . You hit the nail on the head about keeping their members employed in the long term. There are many unions which are now defunct because that industry no longer exists. If the unions ensure thaeir members were highly skilled and educated, they would maximise their employment opportunities.

I fear that nobody will pay any serious attention to any protest these days unless it gets violent. A peaceful protest will just be treated like some silly boys and girls having a big carnival parade (as the 2003 anti-war one was). But I can’t honestly tell people to go out and crack skulls, since there’s no way I would myself (and, of course, it’s a terrible thing to do, but that goes without saying). So I don’t know what the solution is. Maybe get someone with shitloads of money to bribe the government, since what they certainly do respond positively to is money.

@32 I agree with most Lib Dems, who disagree with the Tories but are outnumbered 5 to 1 on the government benches. If Labour believe in cuts, then why the hell aren’t they saying so, and trying to work constructively with the government parties to influence them towards better cuts?

Right now, all you are doing are whining about cuts, as if Labour never privatised anything in government or ever cut government spending on anything. Who gave us tuition fees for higher education?

I definitely don’t agree with Labour’s cuts, which Darling said would be worse than Thatcher.

You know what the most natural coalition in the country would be? Not Labour and the Lib Dems, not the Tories and the LDs, but Labour and the Tories. They disagree on minor things.

If the objective is to change public opinion (perhaps because as Tim @25 suggests, these are ideological cuts and the majority currently share the same view) then how confident are we that marches and strikes are effective?

They may draw attention to an issue, but unless you don’t already agree with the protest, your attention is drawn to a collection of people making a fuss you do not think is warranted. Although I suppose strikes and marches at least give your spokespeople some opportunities to state their case in the media (although it strikes me at how bad activists are at talking to those who don’t initially agree with them).

But maybe there are better ways to bring facts and arguments to people’s attention in a way that might change some minds.

If the objective is to minimize the cuts, then maybe making a fuss (strikes and marches) and generally giving decision makers in organizations a hard time, that might work.

“If Labour believe in cuts, then why the hell aren’t they saying so, and trying to work constructively with the government parties to influence them towards better cuts?”

So one minute you are complaining about Labour’s cuts being worse than Thatcher, and now you are complaining that Labour is opposing all cuts. Which is it?

Here’s David Miliband on economic policy. Do you agree that the government should aim to make a priority of halving unemployment? If not, why not? http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d72f4ce8-95c5-11df-b5ad-00144feab49a.html

“Right now, all you are doing are whining about cuts, as if Labour never privatised anything in government or ever cut government spending on anything. Who gave us tuition fees for higher education?

I definitely don’t agree with Labour’s cuts, which Darling said would be worse than Thatcher.”

So, presumably, you don’t agree with the extra spending cuts on top of what Labour had proposed either? Or do cuts somehow magically become good if they are done by George Osborne and Danny Alexander rather than Alastair Darling?

“You know what the most natural coalition in the country would be? Not Labour and the Lib Dems, not the Tories and the LDs, but Labour and the Tories. They disagree on minor things.”

Minor things such as economic policy, housing policy, democratic reform, the welfare state, criminal justice policy etc etc?

Sunny, you’re always emphasising the need for communication in political campaigning so surely you understand why they’re proposing planning meetings for a coalition to oppose the harsher actions of this government now? It will be too late to be effective in 2012.

I agree with Chaise’s comment way back at the beginning of the thread – rhetoric about “Lie Dems”, “ConDemNation”, and “Nu Liebore”, three quite common slurs I see thrown about that don’t really make me inclined to agree with any good point that those who use those terms may make.

Outside of the Lib Dem parliamentary party, and even within it, there are quite a few who find things such as Cameron’s ideas absolutely infuriating, as the “on your bike” attitude gels with very few Lib Dem supporters. There are moments where the coalition does something pleasing – a more liberal attitude towards prisons, the scrapping of ID cards and so on, and then turns around and starts outlining ideas for housing reform that could see people losing their jobs when finding work.

If Labour wants to get the support of middle-class liberals to oppose the coalition, things like Jack Straw echoing “prison works” in the face of a more liberal line on prisons from the government won’t work. I’m not about to join the Labour Party, although I’m keeping a close eye on the leadership contest to see who wins.

Were, for example, Ed Miliband to win or David to suddenly start taking Ed’s liberal line on civil liberties, I could see a lot of people who were disillusioned by Labour in the past due to civil liberties issues being willing to switch their vote. My own personal politics lie closer to Labour than the Tories on some matters, but on issues like individual liberty and criminal justice they seem to diverge greatly, and for the liberal middle classes to join any “coalition against cuts” lead by Labour, there would have to be signs that the party had changed in this area rather than just it continuously saying that “it’s not the Tories”.

@Chaise Guevara

Take your point about the LieDems ConDem stuff – it looks shallow.

Feel a bit sorry for you if you voted Lib Dem purely on the basis of your local Labour candidate doing a Fib Dem stunt though…after all, that means you voted for a party that didn’t just do stupid slogans locally, but nationally too with the idiotic ‘Labservatives’ campaign…

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/mar/30/lib-dems-labservatives-guerilla-advertising

http://www.libdemvoice.org/so-farewell-then-labservativecom-19577.html