Proof positive that, despite the complaing here, the Lib Dems in power are stopping the Tories doing some (many?) of the things the Tories want to do.

LB

The problem for the Tory Right is that the polls show an overwhelming majority of Tory supporters (90% plus) are satisfied with Cameron. Therefore he can pretty much do what he likes.

“calling for a referendum on Europe”

Haha, they won’t dare. In the current climate the “leave the EU” movement might actually win.

The attitude of Tim Montgomerie is at least consistent.

He whinges about the BBC because it doesn’t report the news the way he wants it to.

Now he whinges about the Coalition because it doesn’t do politics the way he wants it to.

One day, Monty might realise that the real world will never be exactly as he would like it. Same for the rest of us. He ought to get over it, but, sad to say, probably will not.

David Davis is another for whom ideological purity must be maintained, even in the face of reality. Whether or not you like Young Dave, he understands that, as ever, politics is the art of the possible.

So anyone wanting to marshal an argument against the Coalition’s narrative should focus on Cameron, and not on the fringe. As @2 points out, the vast majority of Tory supporters are with him.

‘The Tories are better at playing this game than right-wing Tories are,’ ?

“there is a real chance the Coalition could sustain itself past 2015, and Labour needs to have a response. Surely the answer is simply that the party should aggressively woo Libdem voters?”

It will be interesting to see what form this wooing will take. As one of those Labour are going to have to work very hard to convince, I have to say I’m not particularly impressed with efforts so far. I know many will argue that it is early days, and that you had to chose a new leader…but really….where’s the beef?!

@ Sunny

I thought you were in favour of localism?

From the Guardian article

The localism bill will be put before parliament today. It proposes to give communities new rights to take over services, bid to buy local assets such as libraries, and pubs, and a right to force a referendum to veto excessive rises in council taxes.

What’s not to like?

Don,t forget to download Liar Liar by Captain Ska !
http://www.tescoentertainment.com/store/mp3/captain-ska–liar-liar/2%3a48247063/

“For example: campaigning with Libdems on the AV referendum, calling for a referendum on Europe, taking a more liberal approach to civil liberties”

Erm….wasn’t it he last Labour government who signed us up to the Lisbon treaty and eroded civil liberties in the UK?

“But why wait till that long? If Labour really wanted to play clever politics, they would aggressively woo Libdem voters now and focus on issues that would further cause trouble. For example: campaigning with Libdems on the AV referendum, calling for a referendum on Europe, taking a more liberal approach to civil liberties (and attacking the Coalition when the Tory right asserts itself on the issue)”

Or they could do these things because they’re the right thing to do for the country? Wait, who am I kidding. When has New/Newer Labour ever done anything other than for political advantage

@5 I strongly doubt that the coalition will survive past 2015. Either the Lib Dems will pull out of it to try and save our brand or we’ll get decimated at the election for remaining wedded to the tories.

@6 pagar

“The localism bill will be put before parliament today. It proposes to give communities new rights to take over services, bid to buy local assets such as libraries, and pubs, and a right to force a referendum to veto excessive rises in council taxes.”

With a 10% cut in central government grant plus a centrally imposed cap on local taxation this becomes less attractive, don’t you think? It just means local councillors have to take the rap for cuts made by central government. Now if local government only had to answer to its electorate for how it taxed then things might be different.

We could go on to talk about how this would amplify the already tough problem of regional income disparities, postcode lotteries or whatever you want to call it.

‘Surely the answer is simply that the party should aggressively woo Libdem voters?’

If the aggressive wooing of Lib Dem voters just results in leftish Lib Dems being replaced by Tories in places where Labour can’t win, it’s hardly going to help – not because they’re doing a sterling job of keeping the Tories in line but because the ones who in theory could be working with Labour now and in the future will feel threatened. Better I think to bypass the Lib Dem leadership and talk straight to the members, representatives and sections of party interest without worrying too much about votes at this stage.

@ Cherub

With a 10% cut in central government grant plus a centrally imposed cap on local taxation this becomes less attractive, don’t you think?

Not at all.

I am currently involved in an “asset transfer” from our local council to the community. The hall was previously run by the council at an annual loss of £150k and will, in the future, need to be run at a profit. Without the overhead of the tremendously wasteful council management and with a minor marketing effort this will be relatively straight forward to achieve.

Now, admittedly, this asset is located in an affluent middle class area however the medium term aim is to absorb and, if necessary, subsidise the sports hall in the local sink estate.

In my view, community trusts are one of the ways forward to a bigger society.

13 pagar

So the Big Society… or at least a bigger society….. essentially consists of cherry picking certain relatively trivial services which can be provided by motivated, middle class folks with time and resources to spare?

Well done indeed on the local village hall…. comendable especially if it results in the money “saved” being diverted into front line services, or offsetting the effect of more general cuts. Whether localism and/or the Big Society is an answer more generally is a somewhat harder sell I reckon!

@13 pagar

So your small experience with a village hall has been the basis for your position on so-called localism? That’s pretty poor. You qualify with the caveat, “Now, admittedly, this asset is located in an affluent middle class area”

Do you honestly think that with 10% cuts plus a centrally imposed cap on taxation that the same can work anywhere for all services?

Sunny,

You suggest “taking a more liberal approach to civil liberties (and attacking the Coalition when the Tory right asserts itself on the issue).”

In the same article you highlight David Davies and Tim Montgomorie as examples of the right wing of the Conservative party.

But if you take a liberal approach to civil liberties, you will be presumably aligning yourselves with these people. I think you may be confusing the right of the Conservative party with the ‘moral majority’ right wing of the Republican party such as Sarah Palin? Otherwise, your argument seems to be that Labour should agree with the right wing of the Conservatives and then attack the coalition when that group asserts the same position as you are emphasising…

Which is not to say that it would not be good to see Labour come round on the issue of civil liberties. I’m not holding out hope though…

I think you’re looking at it in a very tribal manner. As a Lib Dem, if Labour tried to “undermine” them by supporting AV, civil liberties and a referendum on Europe…surely the Lib Dems have got exactly what they want?

So I certainly hope you’re right. Of course, like many other commenters here, I think the chances of Labour doing anything positive in the direction of civil liberties or localism is highly unlikely

‘The Tories are better at playing this game than right-wing Tories are,’ ?

Playing the game of lobbying for their side through threats (as David Davis is doing).

George – no one is arguing they do anything bad for the country, but doing ‘good’ is also subjective. Osborne thinks he’s doing the country good by decimating the welfare state, while Labour obviously don’t. Not a good enough argument I’m afraid.

Richard #2 and Tim 3 – spot on.

watchman: But if you take a liberal approach to civil liberties, you will be presumably aligning yourselves with these people.

DD is good on some kinds of civil liberties, but not all. Tim Mongtomerie isn’t really that hot on civil liberties. I don’t think I’d have to align myself with them on that issue, I’d more happily align with Libdems on that.

Which is why the inside the Westminster bubble has decided on defending the Lie Dems, in the last few days and attacking Labour.

The village media aer all Lie Dems supporters now because the Lie Dems have sold out to the Tories. And the village media love the Tories so anything that keeps them in power is good. The fact that the Lie Dems lie and lie and lie is just fine with all the good villagers.

Clegg should be charged with treason, because he caused the protests.

@ Cherub

Do you honestly think that with 10% cuts plus a centrally imposed cap on taxation that the same can work anywhere for all services?

Absolutely. If you can’t see it you’ve got blinkers on.

And I’m not talking about outsourcing local authority functions to greedy private sector leeches but about empowering local charities, co-operatives and mutual societies. We need to be invigorating people who care for others for reasons other than they are paid to do so- in many areas all that is necessary to achieve this is to withdraw the state provision.

Some say that we have gone too far down the other road for this. They say that we are now so reliant on the state to provide us with everything from cradle to grave that we are no longer capable of looking after ourselves and each other. They say that that there is no longer anything left that could be called community, only a bunch of self interested and self serving individuals.

I say they’re wrong.

“Haha, they won’t dare. In the current climate the “leave the EU” movement might actually win.”

Actually it would be worthwhile having the referendum. As regardless of the result it would take the issue out of british politics for a while.

TW

“Proof positive that, despite the complaing here, the Lib Dems in power are stopping the Tories doing some (many?) of the things the Tories want to do.”

Not really – just proof positive that when disenfranchised tories don’t get what they want – they do what disenfranchised labourites do – they blame their bette noir. (Labourites attacked blair for following the daily mail – tories blame attack cameron for being tied by lib dems)

Indeed I still see cause to believe that the tories would not have gone so far on things like fees and proposed welfare cuts if it were not for the lib dems.

After all – letting the lib dems take all the flak means not having to stay rigidly moderate all the time to prove the tories have changed.

Planeshift

Trouble is “regardless of the result” isn’t an option. If the UK suddenly fell out of the EU, taking the EU off the agenda would be scant consolation for the flight of capital and collapse in inward investment we would face.

@20 pagar

So will you be leading the new citizen’s co-op to help wipe the bottoms of Alzheimers patients at the snazzy new Nick Clegg Home for the Deranged?

I didn’t think so.

You need to step out from your privileged, smug little bubble sometime.

You need to step out from your privileged, smug little bubble sometime.

You know nothing about my bubble so if all you can contribute are snide ad hominems there seems little point in continuing to try to enlighten you.

The attitude you portray only fuels misogyny.

Shame.

OFF-TOPIC: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/12/even-worse-polling-news-for-libdems-today/#comment-213168

@98. margin4error

> The two policies I keep asking about are – as I keep labelling them, and as was clear to Galen – ST220 and ST363

ST220: http://liberalconspiracy.org/2010/12/12/even-worse-polling-news-for-libdems-today/#comment-212869

ST363: the same comment

> I suggest you read back to understand what it is you’ve failed to provide any cogent explanation of…

So, you either have not read my reply or you are another liar who is pretending I did not respond. Which is it? Answer the question.

> …I could ask again but it seems a lot of effort when you are presumably capable of reading english

Answer the preceeding question.

> …apparently unwilling to engage in substantive discussion of policy matters.

I have responded to *every* argument presented to me. The fact that you suggest I haven’t marks you out as another dishonest pissant.

> As for my polling of green members – I’ve interviewed Sian Berry, Caroline Lucas and plenty of other fairly well connected party figures – I’ve been to party conferences –

Good for you.

> …my conclusion from a large number of discussions at that level is that many members (not all) feel that way.

Is this supposed to be a substantive, evidence-based argument? If you think it is, you are doing it wrong.

> As a point of advice – you should keep in mind that some of us are not children pretending to get politics but actually work in politics, know about politics, and read up on the policies of parties we care about or have a professional engagement with.

As a point of logic: fallacious argument from (evidence-free) authority.

I don’t care if you are Winston Churchill’s ghost, you have failed to provide a shred of evidence that the Green Party are “anti-science”. You have, however, provided copious evidence that you are incapable of providing rational, civil, evidence-based argument. The copious amounts of indignant rhetoric do not compensate.

So, not a shred of evidence that the Green Party are “anti-science” – but huge amounts of evidence that you and a few others are blind, intellectually dishonest ideologues who refuse to let go of the belief, despite your failure to provide evidence for it.

~~~

We need a weekly / monthly off-topic thread for these rolling ‘debates’.