Could the Liberal Conspiracy reader email in the full leaflet so we can decide for ourselves about the overall tone of the leaflet, rather than partial chunks of it?

For a comparison, Nick Thornsby scanned the full Labour leaflet in for his blogpost on Labour’s OE+S leaflet tactics: http://nickthornsby.wordpress.com/2010/11/13/wheres-woolas/

The tiny writing at the bottom is the imprint, which is a legal necessity on all election leaflets. The newspaper clearly comes from the Lib Dems and has “ELWYN WATKINS” in big letters on the front page. I’m really not sure what the point of the post is.

Sunny Hundal, can you please more clearly explain what the problem is with the leaflet? Other than the omission of the tories on the bar chart obviously. What’s the problem with the imprint? Thanks

A copy was shown round at my local Lib Dem meeting last week and was met with a stunned silence.

Do the local party really think this is going to help them win?

The inside pages seemed to be fine positive stuff, but front and back that sham newspaper look the use of dodgy stats are far more likely to drive voters away.

A major shot in the foot.

I don’t think there is really anything that is factually inaccurate on this leaflet.

Why do the nidioy trolls come on here to tell

Why do the idiot trolls come on here to tell Sunny what to write?

This is a left leaning site, so if you don’t like that go to tory bull shiter sites, There are millions to choose from.

As for the Lie Dems, they are just a bunch of pathological liars who stand for nothing. Nobody with any sense will read any of the leaflets because as we have seen they just change their views when they get in to office. Vote Lie Dems, get a tory

I wonder why the ConDems are even bothering to campaign..snowball in a hot place chance methinks….

Just the usual sniping lib dem fare. Nice big picture of everyone’s least favourite politician – Gordon Brown – pretending the Lib Dems have a better shot of winning than the Tories – Presenting as news what is just partyt political mantra.

Anyone surprised?

Can’t see the Lib Dems winning it. Running at 10% in the polls – rather than the 23% they got at the election. People in Oldham don’t seem all that vexed about Woolas (which is a shame really) and Labour are up about ten points on last May.

Will be interesting to see how many former lib dem voters back the greens though. I still think there is a place for a second leftist party in the country. I want it to be them.

#7

Be fair sally – a vote for the Lib Dems this time is at least a vote for something concrete.

Cuts to Sure Start – Trippliung tuition fees – Delaying the Green Bank until 2014 – No proportional representation – David Cameron for PM.

They are unlikely to go back on those policy positions now.

Seriously? Sally, this is standard leafleting from all parties. There is a similar small imprint on the Labour leaflets, so this is a genuinely weak story.

It isn’t a ‘left leaning site’, it is a Labour leaning site – very different philosophically.

Also, witty though your trollish pun on ‘Lib’ and ‘Lie’ is, the claim that we are ‘pathalogical liars’ is disappointingly agressive and simply false and the claim that we ‘stand for nothing’ shows either that you haven’t read enough or that you have, don’t like our philosophy, and are therefore wilfully mis-representing our party.

“Also, witty though your trollish pun on ‘Lib’ and ‘Lie’ is, the claim that we are ‘pathalogical liars’ is disappointingly agressive and simply false ”

Err, no. Spot on actually.
Clegg LIED.
he said he wouldn’t support a VAT increase

he said he would support raising tuition fees

he’s supported both
ERGO He lied.
EndOf….

you know what I mean …

12

More importantly – he has since joining with the tories “admitted” that even while campaigning against tory plans immediate cuts he had in fact changed his mind and decided actually he agreed with tory plans for immediate cuts.

milleu

That’s unfair. There was lots of pro-libdem stuff on libcon before they started backing such a hardline rightwing small-state agenda with cuts designed to take from the poor first and foremost.

There are still plenty of positives bits on here about ther greens from time to time. And plenty of anti-labour stuff when people like Willis earn fair abuse.

It is a left-leaning site – that just doesn’t leave much space for lib dems these days. Their future is a closer relationship with the tories.

11

Sally’s views, whilst always…how would one put it… trenchant (?), and perhaps overblown, have resonance because they strike a chord.

Many on this site and beyond who once had relatively positive views of the LD’s, and perhaps even voted for them (*sigh* guilty as charged…what can I say..it seemed like the only option at the time… I DID kind of agree with Nick ..then his head started to swivel, and he went all blue..and really seemed to enjoy sleeping with the enemy…) have certainly begun to repent at leisure.

It may not be true that you stand for nothing, but you have certainly ditched a lot of your core policies since forming your unholy alliance haven’t you? Coalitions involve compromise, I think most people can accept that: what they can’t accept is the scale of ideological gymnastics involved in the LD’s dancing to Call Me Dave’s tune.

Similarly it isn’t necessarily the case that people don’t like your philosophy; it’s more a case that you seem not to be overly keen to promote it whilst in government, whatever you said during the election.

If there was misrepresentation involved, I think we only have to look at your record in Coalition vs your manifesto to see where it was don’t we?

Oh, and for what it’s worth, I don’t regard this as a particularly Labour leaning site (in spite of Sunny’s damascene conversion); I certainly wouldn’t be as involved in it if I felt it was.

I’ve told you before Galen and I’ll tell you again – join the Greens. I’m sure you will all the better for it and it might balance out Sunny’s switch to Labour.

16

Hmmnn.. not sure I’m ready to start knitting my own yoghurt pots just yet margin..tho thanks for the offer.

I might vote green as a protest vote, especially if we do manage to get a (slightly) reformed voting system next year… but I think you might still be a bit “out there” for me to think about joining. Drop the opposition to nuclear power and GM’s and I might be persuaded tho

Galen

Drop the opposition to GM and Nuclear – and you ain’t that far from Labour.

And I should say I’m not a member. Just a long time optimist and some-time voter.

Well, on the basis of a rough test, I can hypothesis the graph is wrong, even if they claim they are using a baseline which is not 0. Using the very inaccurate measuring materials to hand (why is there never a ruler around nowadays?) and assuming the scan is accurate, it appears the difference between the two columns on the graph (which equates to 103 votes) is something like 1/25 of the size of the Liberal Democrat column, which means the base line of the graph is approximately number of Liberal Democrat votes (14 083) – 25 X 103 (2575) = 11508. Since the Conservatives got about 200 votes more than that, they should be visible on the graph.

Anyone equally bored, and with a ruler (or the willingness to transfer the image to appropriate software) can confirm these figures if they wish – but I think that mathematically it is correct that this is an inaccurate graph. And that therefore Mr Watkins should not be allowed anywhere near the Department of Education (or whatever name it has today)…

@3

“Sunny Hundal, can you please more clearly explain what the problem is with the leaflet?”

I’m at a bit of a loss too.

Perhaps he’s just suprised that, unlike his own party’s leaflets, it doesn’t try to create racial tension or carry lies about other candidates.

These omissions must be baffling for a follower of BNPlite.

@15

“Coalitions involve compromise, I think most people can accept that”

Most people, but not many partisans.

Hence the ridiculous spectacle of Sunny’s little flock complaining about Clegg’s lack of honesty and principle.

Talk about pots and kettles!

For me, there are two main (related) problems:

1. The newspaper is written and presented in the style of a neutral publication.

2. The only explicit admission of the newspaper that it is a Lib Dem publication is the (required by statute) line on the back of the paper.

Now, you might say that as long as it fits statutary requirements it’s okay – and in no way is it as foul as Woolas’ stuff. But the spirit of this newspaper, as Sunny says, is completely averse to ‘New Politics’. The ‘sham neutrality’ is a pretty dirty tactic – although to the politically active, it might not be convincing, it might distort the response of a casual reader to what is, in reality, a Lib Dem publication.

21.

Err, and what exactly are the Cleggon and his hypocritical toadies getting out of the compromising coalition?
Which policy is Con Dem led?
A referendum (which will be lost by a huge margin as a protest vote hence NO chance of becoming law)?

How parched the ambition fallen on the stony ground of coalition politics!

Paul,

Perhaps I should point out that localisation and cutting of central bureaucracy have always been Liberal aims, so there was a huge meeting of minds with Mr Cameron there. You seem to be assuming that a Liberal polity would work like a socialist one, when in fact there is a major difference in the locus of power and decision-making. By focussing on headline policies, you appear to missing the actual radical part of the coalition platform.

And indeed, Mr Cameron has got a lot out of the alliance with the Liberal Democrats – he has ensured that the big-state Conservatives (Kenneth Clarke is a good example) and the few reactionary right-wingers (think George Bush without the charm and humour – Edward Leigh) have no real influence due to the coalition document, a situation he would not have in minority government.

Watchman,

I don’t dispute the argument re. “localisation” however, as any local councillor knows, headline politics tend to dominate voter thinking in elections (at all scales) and I wonder how many councils, MSP’s and councillors the LD’s will have left to ruminate upon localisation after the May 11 locals and Scottish Parlimenatry elections…..

Watchman

That they shared some principles anyway doesn’t make the case for coalition. If cutting bureacracy was an aim the Lib Dems could achieve that by not having joined a coalition and letting the tories govern alone.

The better question is thus, what has Cameron given up?

So far as I can see the only thing is the publicity stunt of a referendum that will be defeated, for a voting system the lib dems didn’t even want.

26

The referendum outcome is an interesting one: I wouldn’t be too confident it will be defeated, as (much like a general election) people will have a variety of motives when they decide which way to vote.

Some will be emphatically pro or anti, others will vote yes as a protest even if they don’t think AV is the system that should be introduced etc., etc.

I’ll probably vote in favour, if for nothing else in hope that it will shake things up come the next election…. there seems little else to hope for!

@23

“Err, and what exactly are the Cleggon and his hypocritical toadies getting out of the compromising coalition?”

Nothing.

Incredible, isn’t it? Politicians doing stuff for the good of the country instead of the good of themselves.

Paul,

The cost of governing is normally a fall in the number of representatives at other levels. One good thing about localisation is that it would minimise this – there were presumably good Labour councils that were lost due to this effect when they should not have been over the last four or five years for example.

I do agree about the headlines – but I think the Liberal Democrats will accept this (and note that there is no evidence they will lose out in their heartlands).

M4e,

Surely sharing the same principles makes a brilliant case for a coalition? As to what Mr Cameron has given up, apart from some odd parts of his manifeso, very little. He did not need to – he was able to give up some wings of his party instead (as indeed did Mr Clegg).

Actually, looking at the leaflet again, isn’t it a bit lazy to have the quote “There is no money left” attributed merely to “former Labour minister”.

Hardly shows great levels of research skills does it?

@ 22

“The ‘sham neutrality’ is a pretty dirty tactic – although to the politically active, it might not be convincing, it might distort the response of a casual reader to what is, in reality, a Lib Dem publication.”

Agreed, although it’s one used by all parties (my local Labour campaigners love it). And to be fair, you’d have to be pretty bloody stupid to believe it was anything other than a Lib Dem flyer.

It would actually worry more if someone produced a believable free paper that subtly promoted their party – at least the Tory, Labour etc press are not literally owned by those institutions.

It is quite odd that Lie Dems would deny they are liars when their party claimed before the last election that they were against the raising of VAT to 20% What is more Clegg told us to beware the tory tax. Little did we know that in a first for UK elections Clegg was running against himself. The Lie Dems also made a big play in signing a pledge to students which turned out to be as much use as a chocolate teapot.

I am also sure Lib Dem policy was not about social cleansing of the poor from London. I wonder how many other animal loving lie Dems realised that Clegg was going to support the deregulation of laws protecting animal standards of care. I was not aware that the Lie Dems had bought hook line and sinker John Majors education policy of direct funding for schools, taking it out of the hands of local elections. You see, one minute Lie Dems are talking about locality, and then stripping those powers from local people.

The lie Dems have proved conclusively that they stand for nothing. They roll over on every crack pot demand that is made from the tories. They have managed to grant the tories dream of cutting the number of seats in Westminster without a referendum, but the lib Dems will have to rely on a referendum that will be opposed by the tories and their media friends. The net result of this total surrender is that the tories will go into the next election with a an electoral map even more friendly to them and under a first past the post system.

@22. Please, what “sham neutrality”? There’s an enormous bar chart ramping the Lib Dems, there’s Brown-bashing, there’s a big piece on Elwyn Watkins – the Lib Dem candidate. Of course it’s a bloody explicit Lib Dem leaflet. All parties do this in leaflets.

I can only assume you are some naive waif who doesn’t sully his hands with electioneering. Sign on for the next Labour leaflet drop in your area and you’ll see.

I look forward to the Labour leaflets that just say “Vote Labour because you’re a Labour voter, ain’t you”, full of ideological arguments and with no attempt to push the Labour candidate as a tireless campaigner, “standing up” for Street X or Estate Y – actually I’ve seen some of those leaflets from the 80s, closely packed text outlining “Labour’s Socialist Programme ’82″ and so on.

Anyway, no-one is going to lecture any other party on dodgy literature in Oldham East and Saddleworth if they come from the party that produced this:
http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/5905/
and this:
http://www.electionleaflets.org/leaflets/4986/

@33 Oh, easier said than done. Here we are:
http://nickthornsby.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/labour-oes-leaflet-2.jpg

“Come home to Labour” – I for one find that smug idea that people “are Labour” (rather than that they “vote Labour”, “sympathise with Labour”, “agree with Labour policy” or “have joined Labour having been a Lib Dem member at the election”) odious. It’s an appeal to a mindless tribalistic attitude almost like “I’m Everton”, “I’m Bolton Wanderers” or indeed “I’m Oldham Athletic.” It patronises the voters.

I think Labour Conspiracy’s going to have to find a better argument for voters to back the Labour Party’s successor to Phil “Bash a, er, er, extremist” Woolas than “Yer Labour ain’t ya? Yer one of us? Well ain’t ya?”

@34

I see they hijacked Rememberence Sunday. Nice.

I hadn’t realised that the big difference in Oldham 2010 was the drop in the Labour vote, not an increase in the Lib Dem vote. Lib Dems lost just a few votes, Labour lost about 3,800.

The Tory vote went up by 3,000 – presumably 3,000 ex-Labour voters. The Tory increase is all the more impressive given that UKIP increased their vote by 900-odd – presumably patriotic ex-Tories.

So what did 2010 Tory candidate Kashif Ali (11,773 votes, 26.4%) have that 2005 Tory candidate Keith Chapman (7,901 votes, 18.2%) didn’t have ?

Any ideas, anyone ?

Galen

We have discussed this at some length before – but the massive fall in support for AV in polling – coupled with the association of the referendum with the now extremely unpopular Lib Dems seems likely to impact.

Watchman

If they shared all principles then why coalition? Why not unify? The point was that they share some principles (indeed so do Labour, Ukip and the Greens – such as that democracy is good)

@ 36

What’s your point, dude?

Chaise

I assumed laban’s point was that in 2005 he faced the relatively popular Tony Blair and in 2010 Labour offered up the electoral gift of having Gordon Brown as leader.

But I might be missing something…

@ 39

Wait, I’ve got it! The clue’s in the names. ‘Ali’ makes us think of an exciting young boxer at the top of his game, while ‘Chapman’, of course, was the name of John Lennon’s killer.

@35 Actually, it is disgusting that they think Remembrance Sunday services are an appropriate addition to a political leaflet. The other side of that leaflet:
http://nickthornsby.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/labour-oes-leaflet.jpg
puts the poppy in the name of the leaflet, as if it was Labour’s patriotic red poppy or something.

Oh but the Lib Dem imprint is in 8pt font like imprints on all other parties’ leaflets. Wuuurgh! It’s Condem shame! Nyeeeerrrrr!

Agree with you on both counts, Parasite. This leaflet has its faults, but making a big deal out of it is selective to say the least.

And actually, it’s almost better that it shows no bar at all for Tory votes than using the usual tactic where your opponent’s bar is 1/8 of the size of yours when they actually got 1/3 as many votes.

Chaise

Are you saying that Tories punch strangers and shoot hippies?

“Are you saying that Tories punch strangers and shoot hippies?”

I can neither confirm nor deny these accurate allegations.

Seriously sad article I am afraid.

The articles in the Liberal Democrat literature are accurate.

At the General Election the majority of lying (and whipping up racial hatred) Phil Woolas was just over a 100 votes.

These facts obviously create some problems for some…

Are you seriously trying to suggest you’ve never seen an election tabloid before?

Phil Woolas’ “Examiner” newspaper was the same style, and we’ve been getting ‘free local papers’ from all political parties for years. The candidate’s face and TORY/LABOUR/LIB DEM SHAME on the front page usually give away who it’s from.

I can’t believe that someone who writes about politics thinks there’s anything odd about this form of campaigning. Parties have to appeal to people who won’t read the average Labour Rose leaflet – the party logo and council jargon puts a lot of people off.

Some of the best leaflets I’ve seen have been disguised. The Lib Dems put out a great ‘OK magazine’ type flyer with their candidate all dressed up and smiling on the front page in the general election. The tories had a ‘contract’ between the candidate and voters.

Old-fashioned leaflets have their place, but a lot of people won’t engage with a list of policies or even achievements. By putting political information into a new format, parties engage with more people. Simple.

Libs got no chance.

@ 46. Michael.
Very well said. I’m still waiting for a response from Mr Hundal to my original question. I simply don’t understand what his problem is with this leaflet. Please explain yourself Mr Hundal.

Labour-supporters passing critical opinion on the LibDems for reversing a position in the face of electoral reality as lying really is pathetic when you consider this by-election has been called precisely because the previous Labour candidate was officially disqualified for lying.

Political opinion vs judicial fact… just saying, y’know.

Apart from Elwyn Watkins for the LibDems, does anybody know who are the other candidates and what they stand for? Should we assume they are just donkeys with rosettes?

Let’s say that again.

The former Labour MP deliberately chose to lie for pure selfish motives and was disqualified for doing so.

LibDems changed their minds in the face of electoral reality as economic events gathered pace and did so in the best of intentions.

Labour oversaw the financial crisis and had have been critical of the coalition plans while offering no substantial alternative.

Labour have been lying to the country for at least a decade.

“LibDems changed their minds in the face of electoral reality as economic events gathered pace and did so in the best of intentions. ”

No, they lied their heads off. If anything the recovery has shown things were not as bad as they were portrayed by the lying tory scum. They bend over and surrendered to the tories which is why tory trolls defend them.

No, they lied their heads off. If anything the recovery has shown things were not as bad as they were portrayed by the lying tory scum. They bend over and surrendered to the tories which is why tory trolls like you defend them.

As for tory lying, Cameron said his party had changed. We can see that was a lie. The tories are the same jackboot stomping brown shirts they always were.

thomas

Clegg admitted he lied. He admitted after forming the coalition he had already decided immediate cuts were needed while the campaign went on – but that didn’t stop him saying otherwise right up to polling day.

Don’t get me wrong – lib dems who didn’t understand that “we’d do a deal with the Tories” meant “we’ll give all this manifesto up if they let us into Whitehall” were deluded lefties who imagined the lib dems were something they were not.

But that doesn’t mean the Lib Dems didn’t lie to them too. And while Woolas’ lie has made no difference to any area of people’s lives across this country – Lib Dem lies mean people have been conned into voting for trippling tuition fees – sacking police – sacking nurses – and so on.

Which makes it all a slightly more significant lie.

@M4E
I think Clegg was mistaken in using that word to describe his actions – he was simply supporting a position from which he had moved on from as events changed.

If only every politician were so honest to admit they no longer believed what they once said or did was correct (see Blair and Bush re: Iraq, waterboarding etc).

@Sally
Liars cry high heaven that it is the others who are lying. Don’t fool yourself.

Please offer any reason -other than pure tribal loyalty- to convince me why I should trust your economic analysis that an 11.5% structural deficit going into a 6% decline in GDP is anything other than terrible.

Isn’t it just storing up greater problems for the future to then hike the deficit and increase taxes to reduce the decline unless this can also be matched by productivity increases?

53 thomas

You don’t need a nobel prize in economics to see that there are many different ways to try and address the current problems; the point is, are the policies being enacted by the Coalition the right ones, or are they in fact at odds with much of what the LD’s presented as their programme or unique selling point whilst campaigning.

Many people like myself who formerly voted LD, and hoped they were something different from what they have now shown themselves to be in power, simply don’t accept the excuse that there was no alternative, that plans had to change because things were worse than expected etc., etc.

It’s tendentious, self-serving nonsense which doesn’t get any more convincing through constant repitition. Things can and should have been different. Much of the LD membership, even more of those who voted for the party, and on the centre-left more generally, are right to feel they were misled.

Thomas

nice try fella

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/29/nick-clegg-changed-mind-cuts

Asked by BBC political editor, Nick Robinson, if he had changed his mind about cuts this year during the five days of negotiations, Clegg said: “I changed my mind earlier than that … firstly remember between March and the actual general election … a financial earthquake occurred in on our European doorstep.”

So he changed his mind before election day – lied about that and kept pretending he hadn’t – and you commend him for this?

You have some weird views on politics.

@54

Galen10
If you or others feel you were misled then that is a reflection of your passive attitude towards politics and your wish for politicians to pander to your prejudices rather than actually address the real causes of your malcontent.

Fixating on the particular utterances of particular politicians is utterly childish – actions speak louder than words as they show a much greater intent.

Clegg made more of an effort than previous LibDem leaders at the election, so although I voted for my local Labour MP I could see he was serious about sorting out the mess and am very glad we have a coalition rather than a hard-line government.

When people say ‘LibDems don’t believe in anything’ I only applaud and find myself more likely to vote for them. I’m a confirmed floating voter and I think ideological politics is the problem – it flies in the face of evidence and will not be convinced despite any urging.

Government deals with real-world problems, and tries to offer real-world solutions – it takes imagination and it takes principles, but fixed conformity to a scripture written by a long-dead obsessive about another age is the certain way to destructive confrontation (such as we’ve only recently seen by and between students).

But I hope people do keep the flame of ideology burning – it shows the path of darkness to avoid, and I will!

So if I’m indicative of voters with no partisan preference I think Clegg should be very happy at the negative comments against him on this site and could well win this by-election.

@M4E
my wierd views on politics are nothing on the people who complain after the event that they didn’t see what was coming!

56

Nah.. M4E is right, sorry..your views are pretty weird.

If you think the LD’s will win, I want some of whay you are on. You accuse me (on what evidence I’m not quite sure) of having a passive attitude, and yet your floating voter-ness appears to amount to little more than having no principles at all, and falling uncritically for the LD argument that everything had changed when they found themselves in power. It handn’t.

You’re already in the dark m8, your rosy tinted glasses have blinded you.

57

well I don’t know. I’ve supported people only to find out they lied – and I’ve condemned them for that as a result.

The ones who were duped by the notion that the lib dems were lefties at heart and meant anything they said were wrong – and people like me told them that – but it wasn’t an uncommon duping.

And being annoyed at it now seems less weird of them than lauding the honesty of a man for his admitting to lying through an election campaign.

Whether or not anyone likes Nick Clegg any more isn’t the point – Clegg’s not up for election, Elwyn Watkins is – who will no doubt distance himself from some of the more Conservative elements of the coalition and say he’d vote against a rise in fees.

What I want to know is why this leaflet is so bad. As I pointed out earlier, every party uses newspapers, magazines and personal letters to reach voters who won’t read ‘Rose’ style political leaflets.

All the author has done here is highlight that the Liberals have put out a leaflet. Why is that shameful? Or is everything they do now shameful just because they didn’t win an election and are in a coalition moderating a right-wing party and muting the Thatcherite element of it?

It’s as if the last 13 years never happened. The coalition might be doing some bad things, but Labour admitted they would’ve done the same, and now “red” (lol) Ed doesn’t know what to think – so only turns up for 30 mins every wednesday.

How can this website’s editorial team suddenly forget the last 13 years and fall in love with Labour after they did so much illiberal stuff?

60

“Or is everything they do now shameful just because they didn’t win an election and are in a coalition moderating a right-wing party and muting the Thatcherite element of it?”

You see this is the problem with so much of the deluded self justification going on. Are they really moderating the Tories? I’ve seen precious little evidence of it so far. The Thatcherite wing was pretty well muzzled prior to the election: Call Me Dave and his m8′s new the carpet biters had either hopped off to join UKIP or the BNP, or knew better than to scare the horses and make them unelectable as they had under Haigh, IDS et al.

The Labour party still get plenty of stick in here, trust me. There are plenty of us who aren’t about to forget the nauseating New Labour experiment, and are none too convinced about Newer Labour either.

However, if you REALLY think the LD’s are doing so brilliantly, you’re in for a bit of a shock come election time I reckon!

This is not a coalition it is a massacre.

The Lie dems have just run up the white flag and surrendered. That is why the tory trolls are so supportive of the lie Dems.

I still really would like an explanation as to what is wrong with this leaflet, without having to wade through the usual Coalition debates. Any suggestions?

Thomas

“Elwyn Watkins is – who will no doubt distance himself from some of the more Conservative elements of the coalition and say he’d vote against a rise in fees.”

Yah ha ha ha ha ha!

Nice one fella – a Lib Dem saying he’d vote against a rise in fees. Priceless.

Galen

Worth raising the question again – does the Lib Dem involvement actually free the Tories up to be more right wing?

David Cameron’s key aim as leader has been to convince the country the Tories have changed. He desperately wants the nation to feel the Tories are not just small-statist anti-service tax-cutters for the rich.

So with the Lib Dems and Labour both sniping from the sidelines – he would have to keep pressing left to maintain centre ground. He would have to moderate plans and compromise on what he wants to do simply to ensure the public see him as being thoughtful and centrist and not led by ideological zeal.

Now, instead of moderating policy, he just wheels out a Lib Dem in front of camera – and that does the job for him.

So he may actually be freer to march right than he had hoped – because he can pretend the lib dem acceptance of his zeal proves it is not zeal and extreme.

65

Hmmnn.. I suppose that’s possible, although I’m not convinced the Tories would have been able to enact a MORE right wing platform had they tried to govern as a minority.

It has always seemed to me (and I reckon experience to date has proven it correct) that the LD’s would have been more effective as a brake or ameliorating force on the Tories if they had rejected a coalition, whether for a confidence and supply arrangement, or even something less “formal” even than that.

Obviously the LD’s won’t agree with that assessment, as they have a vested interest in claiming that all in the garden is rosy, and that they are not just a fig leaf for the Tories to do more or less what they wanted anyway.

@59 M4E
I (and the majority of people) prefer people to have the correct answers. Obviously it’s better to have them be upfront and candid about their reasoning and conscious processes, but being correct when it matters is more important.

Let’s not forget the tories took three leaders to admit they made mistakes. By constrast Ed Miliband somehow manages to change his opinion on the invasion of Iraq 7 years in retrospect and still refuses to accept any responsibility for the economic problems caused when he was in Downing St giving economic advice.

Miliband has a track record of being wrong and refusing to admit it until it is far too late, so I’ll take anyone accused by him and his supporters of being a liar over him and them every day of every year.

You want honesty; I want answers.

You appear happy to accept self-inflicted crisis after self-inflicted crisis. I’m not.

@64 M4E
If you want some of what I’m on you’d better sober up because your comment shows you don’t even know who you’re responding to!

I don’t know where your head is at, but it’s not on your shoulders.

@65 M4E
You ask the question ‘does it?’ and answer your own question that ‘it may’.

I agree. Cameron isn’t ideological, or at least not in any hard-line way – if he was he wouldn’t be able to appeal to the different wings of his own party and he would never throw any bones to a junior coalition partner in an attempt to win them over or keep them sweet.

The fact is that Cameron is interested in power first and foremost, which explains how and why he got where he is.

@62 Sally
“This is not a coalition it is a massacre.”

Sadly Sally you can’t tell the difference because you refuse to accept there is a difference. Your old-style confrontational politics is dying a long-overdue death. Policies are more important than parties, but the selfishness in your tone prevents you from recognising this.

If you want to talk about coalitions, isn’t this site designed to further the practise?

Perversely the massacre you mention has been perpetrated by people such as Sunny who refuse to see compromise is the practical method of acting on pledges and prefer to dictate oppositional dogma.

The tribal nature of discussions here has proven to hinder the cause of ‘the left’ over the past year, so I see no reason why continuing on the same course will change the outcome.

So let me repeat clearly for your comprehension, people who accuse others of lying do so because they see their own actions in those they accuse: Ed Miliband has called the LibDem leader a liar, and you, Sally, are repeating that accusation.

But if we look back at the track record of those concerned the people accusing others would be better advised to look in the mirror for their targets.

It takes one to know one.

@66 Galen10
Whether LibDems could be a greater moderating force on tories is a moot point because the hard-liners would have enacted a more ideological agenda if they had the sort of majorities enjoyed by Labour and Conservatives when they enacted their own crusades in previous decades.

So in coalition or not it is irrelevant given the fact that the public refused to give any overall majority. I don’t think acting as a moderator was in LibDem minds at all, I think they joined the coalition because they wanted to set their own agenda for a change – which includes refusing to be dragged along by one wing of their party.

People on one wing of a party may like to pretend that their party subscribes exclusively to their wing-based politics, but back in the real world people just don’t think like that.

I think it’s generally accepted New Labour was dominated by right-leaning authoritarians, and they are still at the helm of the party. The internal feuding over their future direction has already caused blood to be spilt among their more prominent figures (Purnell, Balls, David Miliband, Woolas to name a few) – I wonder how much longer the public can be distracted from it!

67

“….people who accuse others of lying do so because they see their own actions in those they accuse: Ed Miliband has called the LibDem leader a liar, and you, Sally, are repeating that accusation.”

Sally will no doubt speak for herself, but it isn’t only Ed Miliband who regards Clegg as a liar. Given Clegg’s public admission that he’d already decided before the election to go back on many of the central planks of the LD manifesto, just what is it you find so hard to accept about calling the man what he is?

Mili Minor’s previous form in relation to his time in the nauseating New Labour experiment is neither here nor there. Your pious (and slightly eccentric) view that coalition politics somehow spells the end of old style confrontational politics, and that policies are more important than parties may play well to the LD faithful, but they look a tad hollow when Clegg and his cronies ditched so many of their flagship policies in return for a shiny baubles from the Tories.

68

“The internal feuding over their future direction has already caused blood to be spilt among their more prominent figures (Purnell, Balls, David Miliband, Woolas to name a few) – I wonder how much longer the public can be distracted from it!”

Your analysis is flawed. The people aren’t distracted from Newer Labour’s problems. Many wouldn’t trust Miliband any further than they can throw him, and are totally unconvinced that they have changed.

I also don’t see how it can be irrelevant whether the LD’s are in coalition with the Tories or not; it is likely have a huge impact on the prospects for (or even existence of) their party in the coming years. In the end it comes down to whether you agree the Coalition with the Tories was the only feasible course. I’ve never believed that to be the case, but even if you accept it was the most likely or easiest option, the LD’s still sold themselves and the country cheaply.

“Sadly Sally you can’t tell the difference because you refuse to accept there is a difference. Your old-style confrontational politics is dying a long-overdue death. Policies are more important than parties, ”

Total troll drivel.

The tory party is fine with what is happening because it is getting 9/10 of it’s agenda passed . If the Lie Dems demanded more from the so called coalition you would soon see the tory right wing rise up and say “no way.” Which rather suggests your nonsense about parties being less important. The tories are the most tribal of parties and if the lib dems would grow some balls you would soon see that.

By the way, I was calling Clegg a liar on here long before Ed Milliband.

@69 Galen10
Don’t confuse me with a defender of Clegg or the LibDems: it was Clegg himself who made a rod for his own back by phrasing his admission in that way.

But while he campaigned on a ‘false prospectus’ the public saw through it, which explains why the LibDems returned fewer seats at the election.

By fessing up he is giving crediting to the public that we understood better than he was prepared to admit at the time the necessary course of action.

So amidst all the pantomime antics he comes out of the mess cleaner than his critics. However, public debate is still going through the wash.

It’s a shame he didn’t have the courage of his convictions as this would’ve provided him with a stronger bargaining position. Gaining seats at the election instead of losing them would have meant more influence, rather than the questionable amount you suggest isn’t worth the price.

From a coalition perspective, a LibDem victory in this by-election will silence the critics, whereas a Labour or Tory victory will only polarise the debate further, so given Cameron’s investment in the coalition this is one he will be happy to lose.

And wouldn’t LDs taking this seat go some way to assuage the doubters that there is a quid pro quo going on?

Obviously anti-coalition cynics will continue to claim it is nothing more than a cynical sell-out, but they will be doing themselves no credit in the process.

It seems clear that amidst all the high-fallutin’ idealism this site has aligned itself with the cynics. So talk about liars all you want – actions do speak louder than words.

“From a coalition perspective, a LibDem victory in this by-election will silence the critics, whereas a Labour or Tory victory will only polarise the debate further, so given Cameron’s investment in the coalition this is one he will be happy to lose.

And wouldn’t LDs taking this seat go some way to assuage the doubters that there is a quid pro quo going on?”

Thomas
You need to go outside and talk to real people!
Clinging to ideological flotsom and jetsom is no substitute for the “realpolitik” taking place in the UK now.

And I wouldn’t put any money on the ConDems even holding onto their deposit in the bye.

The LieDems are toast for a decade, minimum.

..and i’m a former LibDem party member whom lives in Cleggs constituency and , embarressed to say it now, campaigned for him AGAINST the Tories!

If I’M p*ssed off just imagine how non-lib dems feel.

Low single figures of MP’s in the next parliment if their lucky.

72

But the public didn’t see through the false prospectus at all! The LD’s didn’t get more seats because the “I agree with Nick” hysteria had begun to wear off. The idea that if he’s been more honest with the public they would have won more seats seems unlikely; I’d say the reverse was more likely.

I don’t really get your point, other than some vague motherhood and apple pie, “we’re all in this together”, we shouldn’t be so cynical and tribalist line.

The LD’s ought to be a shoo in at this bye-election. The fact they aren’t is a pretty clear indication that they’re doing something wrong.

@71 Sally
Please keep throwing those insults about, you never know when one of them might stick!

I’m glad you disagree with my statement that ‘policies are more important than parties’ – it only goes to prove my point. Thanks.

I’m also glad you are proud to call people names, as you’ll know what is said about that – it takes one to know one, and they break no bones!

Good luck for the future.

@74 Galen10
you get confused because you read the media too much, where people claim credit for effect and then they get caught up in their own publicity.

I think Clegg is a good politician, even though I don’t agree with every word he says.

Nor do I believe the polls at the time showed anything like a majority agreeing with him during the ‘I agree with Nick’ phase of the election – it’s high point reached a three-way split with a one or two points advantage for the LDs, so if that amounts to ‘hysteria’ you’re only really speaking for yourself.

There were many doubts about the LD manifesto – it was I think a cynically calculated appeal by Danny Alexander to a specific target audience and it did lose them seats.

So if you want a better target attack the Chief Sec to the Treasury, not Clegg… wasn’t it convenient that David Laws suddenly resigned almost immediately? Someone close to the leadership must’ve passed that information on… who could that have been?

@73 Paul
Time will tell whether that is a precsient prediction or wishful thinking dressed up as idle speculation.

Please tell me which pub I should go to to find the ‘real people’ you are referring to. I’m sure your vox pop is more perfectly representative of the public at large than anyone else’s.

Well Thomas,

If your ever in Sheffield Hallam then you could try the Hammer and Pincers at the top of Bents Rd, my local. Or if you like cricket try the Wheatsheaf (formely the Parkhead, same of the eponymous cricket club). Or, if you want to run shoulders with the great unwashed masses of the prolotariat then the Banner Cross is good for its beer and footy.

Just walk in with your “Nick was right about the Loans” tshirt on and I’m sure they’ll show you how much they embrace the coalition…….

Thomas

how hard is it to say “Clegg lied, he admitted he lied, and I’m OK with that” ?

Because that seems to be the case despite your holding up as honest for changing his mind (but not admitting that until after people had voted for him thinking he hadn’t)

Also – I believe Ed Miliband wasn’t an MP when the Iraq War happened. As such he’s not really some one to attack over that.

Not that I’m a fan of his. I find him a little to populist and genuinely think his move towards supporting a graduate tax is pretty much the only policy less fair than fees.

@73. “And I wouldn’t put any money on the ConDems even holding onto their deposit in the bye.”

I’ll take that. What odds are you offering?