A nice exercise in counter-factuals but it can easily be re-written in other ways.

And anyway – the Lib Dems could have had fleeting popularity but not power? And they could have felt really good about themselves and dead smug. Meanwhile a minority Tory Government could have done nothing without the consent of the opposition parties – which in the case of cuts, probably would mean doing nothing. Political paralysis.

Politics is meant to be about the exercise of power, not patting yourself on the back because naturally you’re right and everyone else is, of course, dead wrong.

Meanwhile a minority Tory Government could have done nothing without the consent of the opposition parties

To be honest I would rather this was the constant state for any government, Tory or not.
Imagine having to have a full proper debate in parliament on issues of drastic importance to the country instead of just using your party’s/coalition’s majority to force things through. You would hope that anything that does get passed does so on it’s merits alone, rather than it giving the party-faithful a bonk-on.

Oh how I love make believe fantasies. I’m a left wing Lib Dem and I assure you that such a scenario never would or could have happened. Quite simply, in any scenario the Tories could have called an election which no other party could afford to contest. Labour and the Lib Dems would have been bankrupted trying to fight it and (wrongly IMO) market confidence would have evaporated, leaving us with a downgraded credit rating and a rate of interest on our national debt that we couldn’t afford.

market confidence would have evaporated, leaving us with a downgraded credit rating and a rate of interest on our national debt that we couldn’t afford.

Wasn’t that complete bollocks fabricated in order to rush the coalition talks? I suppose I could go have a ganders at the market figures for Belgium during it’s six-month stint without a government to see how likely that would have been to pass.

Alternative histories are only valid when the Nazis are involved. It’s, like, the law. Utterly futile and pointless, I’m afraid.

Far far too ironic -
The ‘Year of the Liberal Democrats?’ – Why does this tongue-in-cheek statement remind me of ‘The Day of the Triffids?’ Vegetables that, due to freak circumstances, discover that they have been given a sniff of power and, as a consequence, betray their botanical function and attempt to strike innocent folk blind – and blind themselves with their own toxic opportunism – into the bargain (with the devil)? Apologies to John Wyndham.

Quite simply, in any scenario the Tories could have called an election which no other party could afford to contest.

What? What does this even mean? Also – where’s the evidence that the markets were about to go into meltdown?

People who waste their time trying to reimagine the past have far too much time on their hands (which suggests an inadequate personal life) and simply can’t be trusted as competent commentators on the present.

Great stuff Don.

@8 Naa mate, ya doing it wrong. If you wanna do some top-class lefty baiting you need to use the word ‘hypocrite’ more.

@10 Cylux
If you want to admit to being a baiter that’s up to you, I’ll try not to call you names.

@11 Ohh burn! Get you, you master baiter you.

@3 George Potter

LD’s who support the Coalition (an ever smaller group it seems) have a vested interest in forwarding the “chicken licken” narrative. However fanciful the alternative history presented above however, you would do well to remember that the the current situation is only one of a number of possible scenarios.

There is nothing inevitable about the current state of affairs, and given the woeful state the LD’s now find themselves in, it would perhaps be more useful for those who still support the Coalition to think hard about what could and should have been done differently and what changes they should now seek.

Power is not an end in itself, and the LD’s have no more natural right to be part of government, than they have a natural right to exist in the long term.

Don Paskini’s counter factual may be wishful thinking, but it seems to many former LD voters and supporters that it is no more inherently fanciful than the wishful thinking currently evident amongst supporters of the Coalition.

Poor article – just assumption, speculation, wishful thinking and guess work.

This doesn’t really do justice to the current reality of British politics. There is nothing ‘progressive’ about the LDs and we should pretending that there was such potential in the party. As someone who pointedly didn’t vote for them precisely because I thought of what was in store with this party, I don’t buy this narrative of a nasty surprise and it-could-have-been-oh-so-different.

Liberals have always been self-interested, and the two times when they have been in power since the 1920s have demonstrated precisely that.

The Liberals are not accountable to ordinary working people, not to any unions, not to anyone but themselves. This is why things have panned out the way they have and not differently as imagined above. And the fact that neoliberalism has dominated the party since 2005 should really have been an obvious spot before the election, too.

15.
The Labour party are ‘accountable’ to the unions? a. is that true? b. is that desirable?

Should a government be specially accountable to a group selected by 25% of the electorate?

Liberals are not accountable to any working people? So no one in the Liberal Democrats has a job? It’s a little odd to state that the Lib Dems are incapable of being ‘progressive’, are Liberal values not progressive any more? Human Rights, the rule of law, our various freedoms both positive and negative, which lie at the heart of the Lib Dem’s identity? none of those are progressive? Fair enough you disagree with the Lib Dems and their policies, but you don’t get to hold a monopoly on being progressive. Especially after the only alternative ‘socialist’ party delivered a mountain of authoritarian policies for 13 years.

“What? What does this even mean?”

It means finances were bad in the labour party and lib dems, so they wouldn’t be able to afford another election. The tories would have used ashcroft cash (and probably raised more from businessmen seeing an open goal) to outspend their opponents.

17

I actually share the frustration of people challenging this lazy assumption that neither the Labour or LD parties could “afford” another GE.

Do we REALLY think that our democracy is so fragile that the sky would fall if, for example, the current Coalition collapsed? Are those who peddle this line actually suggesting that Labour and the LD’s would simply roll over and not bother fighting the election?

Get real! However hard or expensive it would be, a way would be found. Activists would still campaign, people would still come out and vote; the sky really wouldn’t fall down. This unconvincing mantra that one of the reasons the Coalition was “inevitable”, or indeed that it shouldn’t be brought to an end, is that nobody but the Tories could afford it has to be seen for what it is; an excuse.

@Galen10

you’ve hit your subject here – you’re a confirmed expert in “unconvincing mantra”.

Perhaps you can make a reasoned argument once in a while instead.

19

Either you can’t read, as I just provided some counter arguments, or you are in fact one of those who chant the mantra or have swallowed it whole.

In either case, do feel free to come back when you have something useful to add!

@ 18. Galen10

You’re on the money with this one.

@ 19. thomas

You’re in danger of fearing fear itself !

@Ed 16

Well, I was simplifying. By and large – considering the history of the two parties – the Labour Party has been accountable in some shape or form (and emerged from the unions). The Liberal Party has always oscillated between various currents without a real sticking point.

In any case, of course the unions are more representative of ordinary people (albeit with problems etc…) than, say, the business interests that dominate all three parties to varying degrees.

the IPSOS poll (covering the period June to November 2010) here:

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevents/latestnews/605/Liberal-Democrat-support-dropping-dramatically-in-some-regions.aspx

should make chilling reading for those LD members and supporters still in denial about the collapse in their support.

Of particular interest is the total collapse of the numbers who say they intend to vote LD in the North East a paltry 4% i.e. swing to Labour of 19%. Even more worryingly in the South West, which is generally viewed as an LD strong hold, the swing to Labour is 16%, whilst in London LD support has fallen from 22% to 10%.

Those of us who are unconvinced by Labour’s fitness to govern can hardly be too heartened by this news (although it is admittedly difficult to know where disaffected former LD voters would go otherwise!).

Things may be even worse for the LD’s than the above figures suggest however, as the polling “window” which produced the above figures reflected an average level of general support for the LD’s of around 15% nationally, whereas most of the recent polls suggest this has fallen back to around 9%.

3 “Quite simply, in any scenario the Tories could have called an election which no other party could afford to contest. ”

Which just goes to show what poor poker players Lib Dems are if they think like that.

What The Lib Dems should have said is that they will let the tories form a minority govt , and let them set a budget, which the Lib Dems will give serious thought to backing in the country’s interests. (Lay on all the bullshit about the country’s interests just like the tories pretend to do)

The tories would then be faced with having to either set a budget, revealing that they lied in the election about raising VAT. Or call another election that would have pissed of the people, and showed that they are not interested in the county‘s interests. Brown would have gone by then, which would have changed the dynamics, because there was a big anti brown vote.

Instead, the lie dems capitulated, raised the white flag and let the tories go about pushing their extreme agenda with relish. The tories have no mandate to destroy the health system, so why are Lie Dems backing them?

Thanks to the various lib dems ministers out pouring of guilt in the last 2 weeks we know that they don’t support this tory shit. The lie dems could have played this much more cleverly, and kept the tories on a tight lead, bringing them to heal whenever was needed, and sending the tory right wing completely mad. But the stupid, lie dems gave away the farm, all for a pathetic referendum on the voting system that they will loose.

The tories could not believe their luck.

Sally @ 24;

Hear hear to much of that but; “Thanks to the various Lib Dem ministers outpouring of guilt in the last 2 weeks – we know that they don’t support this Tory shit.”

With respect Sally – we know nothing of the sort. The Lib Dems have now been outed in their duplicity – not their guilt. They were extremely naive ( or as Ann Widdecombe would say ‘inexperienced’ ) to think that they could be a moderating influence on the vindictive Tory agenda. ‘Tory shit’ is what they’ve signed up to and are complicit in producing – no matter what they may say in their surgery ‘confessionals’ to undercover journalists. And Tory shit is what the country is having to ingest as a result. Make what feeble patriotic, “we had to in the national interest” excuses you like – will anyone trust Lib Dems again? Jackals in wolf’s clothing – well, it’s a twist.

It means finances were bad in the labour party and lib dems, so they wouldn’t be able to afford another election. The tories would have used ashcroft cash (and probably raised more from businessmen seeing an open goal) to outspend their opponents.

Labour spent little cash on the election anyway. And most of the time, money counts for little, as Ashcroft himself knows. So I’m not sure how strong this line of argument is…

@18 and 24

Labour is £20 million in debt already, the Lib Dems coffers are almost empty. There are 650 constituencies, merely to stump up the deposit to stand a candidate would be in the region of £500k – and that’s not taking into account printing costs and all the other paraphernalia of an election campaign. There’d be no money for political broadcasts or anything else – sure people would come out and vote but the overwhelming message dominating the election campaign would have been the tory one – relentlessly pumped out via television, leaflets and the tabloids – that any government other than a majority would cause financial ruin. That would probably have been enough to win the election for them.

Of course, people might have voted differently but it’s a hell of a lot to gamble on – particularly when the only thing you have is the hope that your vote will hold up.

As for the markets, our credit rating is determined by market confidence. If confidence falls, so does our credit rating and then our interest payments go up. On the monday following the election the FTSE fell. In the negotiations even Labour were willing to concede that a quicker deficit reduction was needed. I’m not saying that politicians or the markets were right to think that no coalition would have meant disaster but that was the orthodox opinion and it is hardly surprising that the politicians made their decisions accordingly.

If you read Mr Laws’ account of the coalition negotiations you will see that the Lib Dems had already decided to do a confidence and supply agreement if no coalition deal was possible. The details of it were all worked out before Labour came to the negotiating table. We could have had a confidence and supply agreement but the tories could have threatened to call an election at any time whilst simultaneously being dependent on their right wing to get anything done. I guarantee you that, however abhorrent you find our centre-right government, it is far better than a full fat right wing government which is what the alternative to the coalition was.

Under the current government we have earnings linked pensions, the pupil premium, an end to child detention, trident kicked into the long grass, reform of the House of Lords and a referendum on AV. None of these would have been possible without a coalition.

Personally I would have liked to see a rainbow coalition, which might well have been possible, despite the arithmetic, were it not for the fact that half the Labour leadership, including Ed Milliband, were opposed to it.

It’s almost amusing that the Lib Dems are now shouldering the burden of government whilst Labour are enjoying the blanket of opposition without yet providing any alternatives to what the coalition is doing. Our political system requires a credible opposition but we do not have that at the moment. Labour failed in government and now they are failing in opposition.

To be fair, though. The Lib Dems may have said some really harsh things about some Tories ‘in private’, but in public they are in this to their collective necks. They are climbing into the voting lobby with Tories right across the board and signing up to the Tory programme with alacrity.

Only today, we see the Tory Jackals sharpening the knives for the weakest members of society, those with long term, debilitating illnesses. Rather predictably, the Tory supporting vermin are baying for blood, but the ‘moderating influence’ of the Lib Dems is conspicuous by its absence. Make no mistake, the decent, civilised, Lib Dems must have all but abandoned the party and the only ones left are the hard-core, nasty scum who are shoulder to shoulder with the Tories in their willingness to shoe the goolies of least able to defend themselves.

Of course, it goes without saying that the Labour Party and the ‘Left’ are unwilling to defend these people either.

George. W. Potter @ 27.

Oh really? How many votes is this long winded excuse/ plea bargain going to salvage for you next time? Actually when you look at things in this Market Led way – why don’t you dispense with elections and nods-to-democracy altogether. Government of the sort the Tories and Lib Dems seem to limit their interests to could be outsourced to a firm of accountants – then no financially embarrassed political party need fear bankruptcy by general election. The public certainly wouldn’t notice the difference from the current incumbents – and think of the taxpayers money we would save. After all what do people matter between elections? They, as always, are at a discount – abolish elections and forget them.

27

“Personally I would have liked to see a rainbow coalition, which might well have been possible, despite the arithmetic, were it not for the fact that half the Labour leadership, including Ed Milliband, were opposed to it.”

I share your distaste for the role of New Labour die-hards in scuppering a potential deal, however the chances of doing such a deal should have been another signal to the LD’s that a confidence and supply motion was the MOST they should have been prepared to offer the Tories.

Yes the electoral arithmetic was tight, but by the time you subtracted Sinn Feinn from the equation, it was certainly feasible. There is this constant refrain from LD ranks that there was no alternative, but it just ain’t so. the same goes for the argument that there is no money, and that it would lead to a second election with Labour and the LD’s faced with a right wing media predominance; but didn’t they sorta have that already?

Are you really asking us to believe that the LD’s and Labour couldn’t even have come up with the money for deposits?! Pull the other one!

If the Coalition had fallen last week over Uncle Vince’s little outburst, are you one of those that think civilisation as we know it would come to an end? That argument is as weak as the “there was no alternative” gambit, sorry.

There are any number of possible alternative scenarios which would have resulted in a better outcome both for the LD’s as a party, and the UK as a society. The responsibility for the fact that your party and it’s leadership failed to bring this about can’t be blamed on outside forces, even if they played a part.

In the end, the buck stops with the LD party leadership, and ultimately the membership.

“If the Coalition had fallen last week over Uncle Vince’s little outburst, are you one of those that think civilisation as we know it would come to an end? That argument is as weak as the “there was no alternative” gambit, sorry.

There are any number of possible alternative scenarios which would have resulted in a better outcome both for the LD’s as a party, and the UK as a society. The responsibility for the fact that your party and it’s leadership failed to bring this about can’t be blamed on outside forces, even if they played a part.”

Well, the Coalition wouldn’t have fallen over Vicne’s remarks because, shock horror, people from different political parties don’t always agree with each other. Everyone knows that the coalition is precisely that – a coalition of two different parties. Does it really surprise you that there are disagreements behind the scenes and that they can continue to work together despite it?

Okay, you say there were alternatives. I don’t believe there were. However, I am open to persuasion on the manner so please, tell me, what were the alternatives?

31 George

It was just an example, but do please remember that Uncle vince in his hubris basically told us he had the power (though obviously not the balls) to break the Coalition.

No, of course it doesn’t surprise me there are disagreements; that’s what coalitions will engender. I’ve consistently said that I’m not arguing against coalitions per se, I thing they are a good thing…. what I’m against is this particular Coalition, and the bad deal struck by the LD’s.

The alternatives have been extensively debated already: probably the best option would have been an arms length confidence and supply agreement, followed by a second election. Either that or a minority tory administration, allowing the LD’s to vote down policies they campaigned on, but have now seen fit to abandon.

Either of these alternatives would have been better than what your party actually engineered, and would no doubt not see you bumping along at between 9-11% in the polls.

George W. Potter @ 31.

‘The coalition wouldn’t have fallen over Uncle Vince’s remarks . . . etc’ Hardly surprising is it? The Lib Dems will only postpone a mauling – or worse- extinction – by not walking away now – what choice have they left themselves – apart from an unlikely ethical one?
You are open to persuasion? I doubt that somewhat – although I will say that your unswerving loyalty to a Tory-tainted lost cause is touching, if not exactly admirable.

Has it not occurred to lib dems that they could have called the tory bluff to hold another election?

Both Labour and Lib DEm could have played heavily on the fact that the tories were trying to buy the election for the benefit of a few hundred wealthy backers. So much for their false claims that they put the national interest first.

Brown would have gone, and the anti Brown feelings would not have been so strong. Also, if the Lie Dems had played the tories along a bit more they could have smoked out a few of their policies. Like the raise in VAT, which would not have been such an easy sell at the next election.

Clegg has become a national joke, his ludicrous public statements just come across as idiotic lies. The worst second hand car salesman in the UK has more credibility than poor old Nick. His u turn on student finance. His ridiculous backing of Cable showed him to be as shallow as an ants swimming pool.

This is an interesting discussion. Lib Dems who think the alternative to Coalition was a Tory minority government followed by another election with a crushing Tory victory should read Sunder Katwala’s post on David Cameron’s apparent lack of electoral self-confidence:

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/10/would-david-cameron-have-won-this-weeks.html

The gist of Sunder’s argument is that the underlying factors shaping voting (e.g., the geography of party support) make it far from obvious that the Conservatives would have been able to make much improvement on the May 2010 result. A key question that Sunder poses is: If the Conservatives were confident they could make such an improvement, why did they agree to the Coalition at all? Rationally, they should have formed a minority government and looked forward to the crushing victory they were confident lay just a few more months down the road….no?

35 Very good points, and we should also remember that the tory right wing was ready to go into meltdown after the election. They were livid that Cameron had not won out right. Ashcroft was frothing at the mouth, the fruit and nuts were very angry.

Yet thanks to the Lib Dems, within days call me Dave was sitting in number 10. Yes the right are not happy at the moment, but a tory civil war was on the cards in the days after the election. The Lie Dems stopped that.

Well done lie dems, you played a blinder.

@32

I understand where you’re coming from but I still believe that a second election was too big a gamble to take. Furthermore, the coalition is getting 64% of the Lib Dem manifesto implemented – a far better deal for our supporters than any of the other scenarios would have allowed.

And @35 it’s precisely because Cameron wasn’t confident that he agreed to a coalition deal. He could have gambled on a second election (and probably won) whilst risking the possibility of a rainbow coalition or he could have put the AV referendum on the table and got a stable coalition which was more in tune with his personal views than a pure tory government would have been. Don’t forget, right wing tory backbenchers are still frothing over Lib Dems and “wishy washy” policies being in government. What we’ve got is not the best of both worlds but, unlike the other options, it is stable and is guaranteed to deliver on Lib Dem policy which is why our MPs agreed to it.

We normally get 20% ish of the vote and 0% of our manifesto being implemented. We’re now getting 64% of it implemented despite only having 8% of the seats. I consider that a bargain. You may not like that but if you dislike it at least be honest enough to admit that you dislike it not because you think the Lib Dems have sold themselves short, but because you would have preferred an outcome more beneficial to your own particular political viewpoint.

37 George

I think stuart’s scenario @35 is much more likely than yours; I doubt the Tories would have won an early second election, or even that Cameron would have survived as leader.

The problem with your narrative about getting 64% of your platform implemented is that people don’t see it as being on “big ticket” policies; what they see is the LD’s acting as enablers for faster, deeper cuts which your party comprehensively rubbished prior to the GE. the strategic defence review was (and is) a shambles, tuition fees has fatally weakened your standing, and despite some success around the edges, we are about to see the most drastic ideologically driven cuts and changes to the welfare state since 1945, introduced with far too little discussion and planning.

Finally, I would of course have preferred an outcome which suited my own political viewpoint. How many people campaign for anything else? It is possible to hold both views simultaneously you know, that the LD’s sold themselves (and the country) short, and wishing the outcome had been one more in tune with my personal philosophy…. what’s so strange about that?

I find it difficult to understand the relish with which lefties fantasise about a tory civil war under a prospective minority govt.

As is pointed out David Cameron would likely have been replaced, but by a more conservative Conservative.

So the LibDem decision to enter a coalition can bee seen to have prevented not only a more right-wing govt, but also a slide to a more extreme version of it.

If opponents of the coalition are serious then perhaps they should consider the consequences more fully – somehow I don’t see you’d be happier that parliament would be forced to enact the agenda of, say, Liam Fox, without any concessions to reason.

But then people on all sides who are motivated by ideology are more interested in dominating debate than real and lasting improvements.

@Galen10

On the subject of opinion polls, there is a real poll coming up in Oldham and Saddleworth, which is a true three-way marginal and will provide the best indication of changes in opinion since the general election.

I’d like to ask three things.

What do you think will be the impact of each potential outcome?
Which candidate do you think will win?
Which candidate do you want to win?

“Which candidate do you want to win?”

Lib Dem – it is still an area where the local labour party need to be taught a lesson about honesty and inciting racial hatred.

6. Mulligrubs- Day of the triffids comment

best comment I have read this year. Glad i was around for that nice one.

@ 39 Thomas

“So the LibDem decision to enter a coalition can bee seen to have prevented not only a more right-wing govt, but also a slide to a more extreme version of it.

If opponents of the coalition are serious then perhaps they should consider the consequences more fully – somehow I don’t see you’d be happier that parliament would be forced to enact the agenda of, say, Liam Fox, without any concessions to reason”

But those concessions would have been necessary by virtue of it being a minority government. It’s not the difference between a right-wing government and a very right-wing government, it’s the difference between a right-wing government with the power to get legislature through and a very right-wing government that finds itself forced to seek support from other parties.

I’m not convinced, myself, that the Lib Dems did the wrong thing. They were in a very difficult situation. But it’s not irrational to say that they shouldn’t have decided to prop up the Tories.

GW @ 37

We normally get 20% ish of the vote and 0% of our manifesto being implemented. We’re now getting 64% of it implemented despite only having 8% of the seats. I consider that a bargain.

I think that is rather touchingly naïve on your part, George. A bit like the man sweet talked into buying a garish sofa in a showroom, who spends the entire journey home convincing himself that he wanted to make a bold statement in his front room all along.

If you really have achieved two thirds of your manifesto, then all I can say is you must have a pretty nasty manifesto in the first place.

First off, if you really think that the Tories needed much ‘convincing’ to switch taxation from the progressive income tax to the highly regressive VAT, then I am here to tell you, George, that you really have forgotten your British history. The Tories have been pretty explicit in their desire to shift the tax burden from rich to poor since the nineteen eighties and have made exactly these shifts in the past. Once we see the huge tax cuts for the rich that the Tories have pencilled in for the pre election sweetener, then perhaps that will wake you from your slumber. If the millionaire Clegg was serious in his pledge to use tax cuts to help ‘the poor’ then he should have proposed cuts in regressive taxation, leaving the Tories less room to engineer a tax in progressive taxation.

The leadership sold you a pup on this one, George, but only because the average Lib Dem is a pretty gormless beast.

Nowhere is that shown when Clegg was seen crowing at Tory proposals to redraw the political boundaries and cutting the number of MPs to 600. The term ‘turkeys voting for Christmas’ is an over used phrase, especially at this time of year, but all this studying the polls is going to look pretty futile, because you are going to be Gerrymandered out of Parliament. I could go on, but you get the picture. You got 64% of your manifesto? Yeah, give a fool enough rope.

To be honest with you George, I see much of the ConDem plans coming to fruition, all over the Country, I come to regard the Lib Dems in general and Nick Clegg in particular as every bit as the enemy and every bit as downright evil as the worst ‘Thatcherite’ currently sitting Parliament. Anyone who thinks that driving the mentally ill onto a hostile labour market and therefore further into poverty or who think that the way to kickstart the labour market is to provide the biggest companies in this Country an endless supply of free labour little better than vermin in my book.

40 thomas

In reverse order:

“Which candidate do I want to win”: Prior to the past few months, I’d have said I wanted the LD to win without a question, and I share planetshift’s view that the local Labour party need to be taught a lesson. Given how disappointed I am with the LD’s however, I can’t now say I want them to win. I’d actually prefer it if a suitable independent won the seat. If I lived there I would probably vote either for such an independent, or Green as a protest vote.

“Which candidate do you think will win”: hard to say as I don’t know much about the constituency in question. Even given Labour’s bad track record however, they might be in with a chance, particularly if people are more inclined to use the opportunity to give the Coalition a bloody nose for their national record, than they are to punish Labour for their past errors.

“What do you think will be the impact of each outcome”: If the LD’s don’t win, it will be a nightmare for them, especially if their vote falls significantly. I would still expect Clegg et al to pursue their doomed project, but it will weaken the party even more. If Labour win, it will be a fillip for the party and for Ed I suppose, but unless it is a clear victory, it will show people are still unconvinced that Labour has changed. Even if Labour win convincingly however, people might see it as a protest vote against the Coalition. If the Tories won, (which doesn’t seem too likely unless enough people abandon Lab and the LD’s in disgust due to the previous local problems) it would be something of a coup for Cameron.

@ 40 thomas

“On the subject of opinion polls, there is a real poll coming up in Oldham and Saddleworth, which is a true three-way marginal and will provide the best indication of changes in opinion since the general election”

Will it? I don’t deny that it’ll be interesting, but if opinion polls present an inaccurate vision of public opinion, surely by-elections are even less reliable? In fact, I suspect that will be especially the case in this one, as the events that caused it to happen in the first place are likely to shift the vote either away from Labour (swing voters deciding to punish the party for its behaviour) or towards it (people who bought the “they’re trying to bully Phil” line deciding that his downfall is just further evidence of said bullying) in a way that would not be reflected across the nation as a whole.

Thomas @ 39

So the LibDem decision to enter a coalition can bee seen to have prevented not only a more right-wing govt, but also a slide to a more extreme version of it.

Let me tell you something which I seen with my own eyes. The local Wilkinson’s in Livingston have paid off about a dozen and a half temps, (contracted to 16 hours a week). They have been replaced by a handful of guys from the local ‘providers’ of forced labour (30 hours a week each), unemployed a shower called ‘Igneous’.

What an enlightened policy. Make people unemployed in order to ‘provide’ other unemployed people to train for non-existent jobs. Thank God for the Lib Dems and their calming influence. Heaven knows what further backward policies would have been implemented if it weren’t Vince Cable or Charlie Kennedy.

The Tories are straightforward Fascists and thick with it, but I will promise you this, ANY Lib Dem approaching me during the forthcoming election, whilst I have a blunt instrument in my hand will be in danger of losing their teeth. I am not joking, I fear for my temper at this time.

@ 39 Thomas

I agree with Chaise @43; I simply don’t accept the “there was no alternative” or “it would have been worse otherwise” narratives.

Indeed I would go further than Chaise and say that not only is it not irrational, but that it would probably have been more rational to opt for either a confidence and supply agreement, or leaving the Tories to try and form a minority administration.

The more I have watched developments over the past 6 months, the more convinced I am that the LD’s have made a huge strategic mistake. As has been pointed out elsewhere, if the Tories were so convinced they would win a second GE, they would have made sure it happened. The truth is, Cameron was in a relatively weak position too; he snatched a Coalition from the jaws of outright victory.

It is surely a sign of the LD’s inexperience, and of the relative weakness of their front bench team, that they over-estimated the strength of Tories hand; in effect, they blinked first.

I honestly can’t see why LD supporters don’t see this. In the immediate aftermath of the GE, you had 2 different paths open to you than the current Coalition:

1) you should have demanded much more than you actually got, making it a true Coalition, rather than a tory administration with the LD’s as minor partners. This should have included a demand for the same proportion of ministries as the ratio of Conservative/LD popular vote (NOT seats in our gerrymandered parliament), a slower and more progressive approach to deficit reduction, cancellation of Trident, STV not AV, much more rapid progress on moving towards a green economy. All of this should have been clearly stated “up front” months before the election.

2) Let the Tories try and govern as a minority; vote down those policies you didn’t like, and clean up at the early election (which may have been as as soon as autumn this year), when no doubt the Tories would have knifed Cameron in the back sharpish.

Either of these scenarios would have been preferable to the current situation. Neither of them would I suspect see the LD’s at around 105 in the polls, facing electoral meltdown and the very real possibility of breaking up altogether.

If the tory troll thinks getting rid of Cameron and putting in his place another Duncan Smith character as leader would have helped the tories win a second election then please get a job a tory central.

We need more loons like this running the tories.

Year of the Liberal Democrats?

You mean this year – where they actually lost seats in Westminster and sold their voting base down the river?

It most certainly has been the year of the Liberal Democrats.. one that has completely divided the party and shaken its very foundations. Enough of the positive innuendo – trying to paint a different picture is simply insincere. Liberal Democrat apologists are quick to play the “moderating the bad Tory” card, which does nothing for their credibility when the next election campaign arrives and they have to fight their corner.

All three main parties have considerably different problems right now and the Liberal Democrat one is existential.

@43 Chaise Guevara

That’s a judgement call, and as it’s not reality there’s no way to say for sure.

A minority tory govt with a more right-wing leadership may have had a smaller agenda, but its’ proposals would certainly be more hard-line.

So their opponents preference for a coalition or a minority govt is in fact a matter of whether you’re more concerned with the generalities or the specifics.

@47 Jim
So the country is in the worst of all political worlds, is it? and things couldn’t be any worse?

After the shocking mess Labour made of the economy and jobs, of foreign policy, of civil liberties, of energy, housing, health, education, transport and everything else the country could have reacted much more strongly and we would now be facing a much more radical tory govt.

The dramatic collapse caused by Labour required drastic measures to sort it out. How drastic the measures are is still up for grabs. We can complain about cuts, but how does that change the fundamentals which caused them? Because the government is charged with this task, and it’s our choice in which direction we want to influence them.

Some of their more adament critics clearly aren’t interested in trying.

As for that decision to replace temps with trainees I’d be interested for you to follow-up and find out how many of them end up as smack addicts and how many take more proactive career decisions to improve their situation.

@51 Bit judgemental on the old smack addicts there old chap, you sure you’re a liberal?

51
The fact that the tories did not win a landslide with all the media backing, and all Ashcroft’s millions. The fact that they could not win out right with one of the most unpopular Prime Ministers in years, shows that the public, either did not think the country was as fucked as some tories would like to think, or that the public could see quite well that the financial mess was infecting most of the Western world, and was not just Labours fault.

The ‘broken Britain’ crap did not chime with many, and certainly the idea that the tories would be any better did not fly in the election.

I still fail to see why the Lib Dems have to surrender to the tories on so many issues. There is no need of another upheaval in the health service. So why not just say no. The Lib Dems refusal to say no has shown them to be either weak or closet tory. Either way it does not play well with the public.

51 Thomas

“A minority tory govt with a more right-wing leadership may have had a smaller agenda, but its’ proposals would certainly be more hard-line.”

Yes, but given that they would have had no majority, they couldn’t have enacted these hard-line policies could they? A principled LD party (which let us not forget LOST seats at the GE, and after the fading of Cleggmania saw it’s % of the vote falling) could have simply sat back and waited for the minority Tory administration to self destruct, and gone into an autumn 2010 or spring 2011 election asking the people for more of a mandate.

Power at any cost is just too high a price.

@48 Galen10

Your analysis doesn’t make sense.

LD strategic mistake??? Wow, there’s nothing like trying to push your preconcieved notions down the throats of others!!!

Do you mean for the interests of their party, or their policy platform? Either way you’ve got to share your crystal ball with us since the outcomes of both are not yet decided.

I’m not a LibDem or a defender of the coalition by any means, but even I can see they calculated the opportunity was more benefical to them than the risks it presented.

As proponents of coalition government and PR the public would severely punish them for refusing it when offered, whatever hits they took in policy terms. If they stayed out they would look like a party who didn’t want to get into government, which is a prerequisite for any party who reached the heights of popularity in your vaunted opinion polls.

Anyway, as someone who admits you’re no friend of theirs I don’t see why they’d be interested in taking your advice.

And then your logic regarding the coalition negotiations simply flies out of the window!

You may well say it’s a sign of inexperience to underdemand, but the LibDems came to the table as the more experienced party, using their past agreements in Scotland and Wales as the basis of the negotiations. In fact it was the tories who were less experienced, so by the terms of your own argument it would be more sensible to conclude Cameron’s supporters got the rawer deal.

Really it’s nothing more than your ‘opinion’ (in the worst sense of the word) that they could have got more than they did. Maybe they could’ve played the propaganda game and been firmer on ensuring some of their pet issues were pushed through, but the trade-offs required for that would have meant any portrayal as a prop for tory ideologists (which would have happened in any event) had more substance to it than is now the case.

Politics is a strange beast – it actually works better to underdemand and overdeliver than over demand and raise expectations beyond what can be realistically achieved. But that’s how and why politicians get to be politicians and voters remain voters.

You’re obviously coming at it from standpoint of orthodox populism (‘we want it all and we want it now’), and if anybody knows anything about LibDems that’s just not them: they’ve rarely set out to please crowds and it’s even rarer that they’ve succeeded, but on the major issues such as Iraq and the credit crunch they did prove themselves ahead of the game, even risking ridicule for it, so I’m very wary of anyone who dismisses them completely.

They were going to be damned if they did, damned if they didn’t and even more damned if they didn’t do whatever they did exactly right – so if they can’t be any more damned (and they can’t on the blogosphere on on the streets) then they must be doing something and doing it at least a little bit well!

The truism is that people simply have higher expectations of the LibDems because public illusions hadn’t been shattered by periods in power, and that was both to their credit and detriment. Things are changing.

Of course this is a tribalist site with a tribalist audience, but it’s dangerous to hope any government actually fails. On the other hand Labour had banks of goodwill in 1997 and they took the country to the precipice.

@52 Cylux
Have you ever been to Livingston?

“Of course this is a tribalist site with a tribalist audience, but it’s dangerous to hope any government actually fails.”

Troll shows his tory bias in all it’s sad glory.

@55 thomas

Sorry, but your post just reads like “your” opinion, and yet that is exactly what you are criticising me for….so not sure how that really works?

As I (and others) have said, your argument that the public would punish them for not taking up an offer of coalition are simplistic. The voting public could easily have seen the difference between walking away from a bad deal, and swallowing the Tory offer whole. Again, that “counterfactual” is just as plausible as any of the others, probably more than the one you posit in my view…. but yes, I’d accept it’s just my view. Which is the most convincing is up to others to decide based on their existing beliefs, prejudices and reading of the evidence.

I have no illusion that the LD’s will take a huge amount of notice, but that isn’t going to stop me pointing out where I think they went wrong. It certainly OUGHT to be of interest to them where the roughly 15% of the national votes they have lost since the GE have gone?

The rest of your post goes on (at considerable length) about my view of the coalition negotiations being “just my opinion”; exactly….and so what? Your counter argument is “just” your opinion.

@38, 44, 48

A few points:

- According to the Guardian (who are hardly in a Lib Dem friendly mood at the moment) we have got 64% of our manifesto implemented – things like the scrapping of ID cards
- The reduction of seats and redrawing of boundaries will be done by the independent Electoral Commission, hardly gerrymandering. In fact, all it will really do is neutralise the existing bias towards Labour (just ask the Electoral Reform Society if you want proof of that)
- The Lib Dems could not have gotten anything more out of the negotiations than they did. Just check any account of the negotiations by people who were actually there.
- The cuts will reduce public spending to 2008 levels – hardly “fascist” or “the most drastic cuts and changes since 1945″
- It was not power at any price, had it not been for the AV referendum then there would have been no deal

I personally have been a critical supporter of the coalition ever since reading the coalition agreement. I suggest that some of the people on here actually read the agreement instead of showing their ignorance by using terms like “fascists”.

Furthermore, the key difference between me and many on this thread seems to be this: I give everyone an equal chance. I do not instinctively hate anyone and dismiss anything they say or do without reason. I am, in short, a pluralist. I have no great love for the tories, particularly given Thatchers legacy, but that doesn’t mean I assume that every tory is evil incarnate.

I grew up under a Labour government. Thirteen years of a right wing, business friendly cabinet that utterly betrayed the poor. I saw the poverty gap grow wider whilst attacks were made on our public services from all sides under the guise of PFI. I saw an authoritarian government strip from us as many civil liberties as they could and lead us to an illegal and bloody war in Iraq. If I had a choice between a Labour fourth term and the Coalition we have now I would choose the Coalition every time. As a member of the left I view the current government as the lesser of two evils and I think the country, our political system and the left will be the better for it.

59 George

Whilst I think you are well intentioned (if misguided), and even agree with you on a number of issues, the dichotomy you pose at the end of your post is false: the choice wasn’t just between either a fourth term of New Labour or the Coalition. As already discussed above, a number of alternative paths were possible, and LD insistence that there was no other way just doesn’t stand up.

I’ve experienced both Thatcherism and New Labour. I hate them both with a vengeance. I’ve never had a government which truly represented me, hence my disappointment with the LD approach to the Coalition. Not because I’m opposed to coalitions per se, or because I demonise all opponents or people of different views as evil…. but because I think the LD’s have made a huge strategic (and for that matter tactical) blunder.

I’m pretty convinced the country would have been much better off if the LD’s had either not entered the Coalition, or done it under different conditions; I don’t accept your argument that they got the best or only deal on offer, they panicked and dilated. I’m also pretty convinced that the LD’s will be crippled by their record within the Coalition; if it doesn’t actually fracture your party altogether, it will diminish it greatly. The polls point to a huge slump in your support, which I’m sure is reflected (even if less radically) in membership numbers too.

@60

“Whilst I think you are well intentioned (if misguided), and even agree with you on a number of issues”

Likewise

And yes, I do know that there were more options available than the two I mentioned above. I just used that dichotomy to illustrate my frustration that some people seem to blindly believe that the Coalition is the worst thing ever and that the Lib Dems are evil incarnate for not propping up a Labour government instead.

I understand your viewpoint but I think it is wrong. Having personally read David Laws’ account of the negotiations (well worth a read) I am of the opinion that, on the information available, the Lib Dems made the best possible choice.

George W @ 61.

Yes and if you keep repeating that last paragraph – I’m sure that you will come to believe it most sincerely – providing you hurry back to your cell in the Trappist monastery now – and don’t watch the news for the coming twelve months.

@59 I have to admit, being a gay man, new labour’s legacy for me was greater civil liberties, not less. Just saying.

Thomas @ 51

the country could have reacted much more strongly and we would now be facing a much more radical tory govt.

Yeah, the operative word here is ‘could’. The Tories ‘could have won an outright majority and then ‘could’ have instigated far harsher policies. However, they did not and the policies they are now pushing on with are done so, with the support of the Lib Dems. That means that the Lib Dems are legitimate targets for attack here, because they have actively supported a myriad of wicked policies. For Lib Dems to simply shrug their collective shoulders and glibly say ‘Well, had the Tories won an outright majority, it would have been worse’ is palpable nonsense. The Lib Dems are responsible for their own actions and propping up immoral policies marks them out as immoral people.

The dramatic collapse caused by Labour required drastic measures to sort it out. How drastic the measures are is still up for grabs.

People like you and more than a few Lib Dems STILL peddle this tired old line. What caused the ‘dramatic collapse’ was not Labour per se, but rather Labour’s attitude towards free market capitalism. When people like Danny Alexander et al use terms like ‘Labour’s mess’, ‘Labour’s huge deficit’ and the ubiquitous ‘Labour’s overspending’ the clear subtext is that they Lib Dems believe this mess is caused, not by bankers, nor by deregulated markets, but by Government spending, and in particular, spending on the most vulnerable members of our society. Given that the Tory Party are targeting these groups as scapegoats, then I see no reason why the Lib Dems should escape criticism.

but how does that change the fundamentals which caused them?

The onus is then on the Lib Dems to explain what these ‘fundamentals’ are. If they cannot address the real, underlying issues that caused the economic collapse, i.e. the greedy bankers and the millionaires that rely on the corrupt system that they supported, instead going after the weakest members of society, that means that they are no better their Tory masters.

Some of their more adament critics clearly aren’t interested in trying.

Oh, you can bet your last quid in your pocket, I am VERY interested in ‘trying’. In fact I am interested in succeeding too. However, given that the millionaires in the cabinet went to school with and occupy the same social and economic class as people who really brought the Country to its knees, it is unlikely that they will find the ‘fundamentals’ that are wrong with the economy, are they? Especially when the likes of Clegg, Laws and Alexander are convinced that the people who shot holes through the entire economy are the Country’s dinner ladies, care assistants, lollipop men and Council workers.

As for that decision to replace temps with trainees I’d be interested for you to follow-up and find out how many of them end up as smack addicts and how many take more proactive career decisions to improve their situation.

Where to start with this one?

First of all, you have tipped your hand. Such a sneering, nasty little comment is only likely to come from the worse kind snivelling Tory. Secondly, these ‘temps were not replaced by ‘trainees’, they were replaced by forced labourers. They are not being given ‘training’ they are doing the work. They are doing the work of people who were recently paid off. I thought you people were against euphemisms?

Lastly and perhaps most importantly, this rather neatly illustrates the mentality of the type of people who the Lib Dems got into bed with.

GEORGE POTTER & Other ‘decent Lib Dems’, please read ‘Thomas’ last paragraph in post # 51 and ask yourself if that is the type of fuckwit you wish to be associated with?

Thomas, are you seriously suggesting that you cannot see the flaw in either your argument or this ‘policy’? Are you seriously suggesting that you cannot see the inevitable consequence of replacing people in paid employment with unpaid staff? You seriously cannot see how that makes these people who have recently been sacked task of ‘improving their situation’? You don’t think that destroying millions of jobs and replacing them with the coerced unemployed may be ‘a bit short sighted’? You genuinely don’t think that may lead to a complete collapse of the labour market?

Yet, despite displaying the type of dumb fucking ignorance that sums up the ConDems, you feel able to comment on the fundamental problems of the economy.

Amazing

@64

“People like you and more than a few Lib Dems STILL peddle this tired old line. What caused the ‘dramatic collapse’ was not Labour per se, but rather Labour’s attitude towards free market capitalism. When people like Danny Alexander et al use terms like ‘Labour’s mess’, ‘Labour’s huge deficit’ and the ubiquitous ‘Labour’s overspending’ the clear subtext is that they Lib Dems believe this mess is caused, not by bankers, nor by deregulated markets, but by Government spending, and in particular, spending on the most vulnerable members of our society. Given that the Tory Party are targeting these groups as scapegoats, then I see no reason why the Lib Dems should escape criticism.”

Actually I blame labour for this mess precisely because they failed to heed the warning signs and properly regulate the markets or the housing bubble. Brown’s economic incompetence has cost us all dearly and everyone is having to shoulder burdens which shouldn’t be their burden to bare. Thatcher’s deregulation started it all off but I expected better of Labour when it came to the markets.

Also @64

No, I don’t want to be associated with Thomas’ last paragraph in 51. Nor do I imagine that most Labour supporters wish to be associated with you in 47 and:

“The Tories are straightforward Fascists and thick with it, but I will promise you this, ANY Lib Dem approaching me during the forthcoming election, whilst I have a blunt instrument in my hand will be in danger of losing their teeth. I am not joking, I fear for my temper at this time.”

If you really are the kind of person who lumps together everyone who disagrees with you then the Coalition is the least of your problems. That said, you may wish to ask Sally for her number. You’d probably get on like a house on fire.

Ken Clarke has had the backing to say that prison does not always work. Incarceration must be more humane. Fewer people should be banged up. Prisoners should be treated humanly.

Would that have happened under a LibDem vote deal with the Conservatives. Or is it the case that liberal conservatives are liberated?

George @ 59

The reduction of seats and redrawing of boundaries will be done by the independent Electoral Commission, hardly gerrymandering. In fact, all it will really do is neutralise the existing bias towards Labour (just ask the Electoral Reform Society if you want proof of that)

Well, that assumes there won’t be any political interference from the Tories. What the Tories define as ‘independent’ is slightly different from what you and I do.

I am genuinely interested to hear what you mean by ‘Labour bias’ in this context. Every seat (save that, by convention the speakers) is open to every political Party. No matter the size of the electorate, all any candidate need do is gain more votes than any other. Everyone standing is capable of polling the majority of votes in any given seats. What you ‘mean’ is that the Tories find it ‘difficult’ to win in urban seats, that is not the same as ‘bias’. Perhaps the Tories should ponder to the reasons they are hated in cities, rather than attempt to skew the electoral system to favour their Countryside heartlands.

I accept that the Lib Dems have forced grubby little deals to save the seats of some of your high profile MPs, but look again at the political map, esp the South West. Be careful what you wish for George.

The cuts will reduce public spending to 2008 levels – hardly “fascist” or “the most drastic cuts and changes since 1945?

It is the ideology driving those cuts you should look at, George.

Not only that, but look at the language and imagery used to justify those cuts. I find it very disturbing the way people on long-term disability are portrayed in the media. The general dehumanisation of those of our fellow citizens who claim benefits for whatever reason. The Daily Hate seemingly prints little else at times. They go after every fraud case and print every minor detail, every housing benefit claim, every unemployed claim etc for minor flaws in the claiming process. They examine these claims in great detail and yet, they somehow manage to ignore the millions of legitimate claims of hardship. That is not a ‘mistake’, that is a deliberate policy. I bet there are even some people who think that these stories are representative of claimants all over the Country. To attack some of the weakest members of society in such a manner smacks of ‘fascism’ to me. George, that is not hyperbole, I genuinely see parallels between the attack on MS protester by Littlejohn and the early mutterings of NAZI Germany. No, I do not think we will see death camps or exterminations in the near future, but I do fear that some members of our society will suffer because they are seen as sub human.

I give everyone an equal chance. I do not instinctively hate anyone and dismiss anything they say or do without reason

However, at some point you have to start taking what people say and more importantly, what do with power, and judge them on that.

Nick Clegg thinks that raising income tax allowance will ‘take millions out of tax’ for example. I think we are entitled to judge that man by that statement. We are entitled to ask what cynical criterion does Clegg judge this. We are entitled wonder if the man has got any idea what he is talking about and I for one feel perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the man is simply unable to understand the plight of the poorest people in our society.

IDS tells us he is interested in helping the poor out of poverty, yet he thinks attempting to force the mentally ill onto a labour market that neither needs nor wants them. I think we are entitled to judge a man who thinks that people with long term, degenerative diseases should be judged on their ‘best days’ not their worst. I genuinely think we are entitled to condemn a man who would see a MS sufferer destitute because he is unable to attend work three days out of five.

And yes, I will say it. I think we are allowed to question IDS’ commitment to help the unemployed on the fact that he JOINED THE TORY PARTY, FOR FUCKS SAKE. A political Party who deliberately and cynically forced whole communities onto the dole without a single pang of conscience. I think we should be allowed to judge for whom ‘bongo, bongo land’, ‘rivers of blood’, clause 28, ‘kick his walking stick away’ and lots more beside still forms much of the folk history of that ideology. I think we can still make really good assumptions of the content of a character that thinks ‘Climate Change’ is bollocks dreamt up for tax reasons.

I don’t judge people merely because they join the Tory Party, but for some reason, the people with the most despicable political views seem drawn to them. I wonder why that is?

59. George W. Potter

” The Lib Dems could not have gotten anything more out of the negotiations than they did. Just check any account of the negotiations by people who were actually there. ”

I do understand the dilemma that the election created for the LibDems. Some on the left would still criticise a LibDem coalition with the Tories even if you enacted the Labour manifesto as part of the coalition. To them there is no difference between liberal Tories and the frothing fruitcakes on the right. However, I can’t accept that you could not have got more. Everyone for the last two years including the Tories themselves expected the Tories to win. Therefore, in the negotiations all the power is on the LibDem side as they have nothing to lose. The Tories have the prospect of forming the government to lose. Therefore, the LibDems can make any request and the Tories can’t refuse or they lose everything. In effect it is costless negotiation from the LibDem side.

Actually in government they need to distance themselves from the things they disagree with. Any good news and it will be Mr Cameron taking the credit. Bad news and it is the LibDems who are being set up as stooges to take the blame with the Tories pissing themselves laughing at the LibDems being slaughtered. Unless they even within the Coalition distance themselves they can’t complain if they equally get tarred with the negative stuff.

GWP @ 65, 66
Actually I blame labour for this mess precisely because they failed to heed the warning signs and properly regulate the markets or the housing bubble.

I did make the distinction. You would concede when people ‘blame Labour’ for this, many of them do so because they feel Labour ‘spent recklessly’ rather than ‘failed to regulate the banks. If you feel that a failure to regulate capitalism is the problem, it seem rather odd to get into bed with the Tories.

Nor do I imagine that most Labour supporters wish to be associated with you in 47 and:

Can’t say I care much about Labour, when you consider who they are happy to associated with.

I fully accept that comment is a bit ‘hardline’ or even ‘extreme’. It is how I honestly feel about things sometimes. Politics is not an abstract game like ‘sim city’. Real people are suffering real hardship because people who they have never met are making real bone headed decisions and outright ideological attacks on some of the poorer people in society. People who I have never met have made decisions that may, in the future, have real implications regarding my life. I have to be honest, George, I am reasonably secure at the moment, my job appears on the face of it perfectly safe and the long term outlook looks stable if not rosy, but I am all too aware, that could change tomorrow. So while it is fair to assume that I have not been made unemployed to make way for forced labour, you can be never be sure that you may have to stack shelves until something better comes along. So when some of the most profitable businesses in Europe can jettison paid workers and replace them with unpaid labour, I worry. Not only do I worry, but I get angry because such an obviously stupid and cynical ‘policy’ can be invoked by some pretty vicious people.

I do not think violence solves problems, George, nor do I think that violence is justified. I am not by instinct a violent person, I probably would not strike someone who offered me a Lib Dem or Tory leaflet, but I would rather not test that hypothesis.

George, you appear a committed bloke and, if I was honest, you appear to have your ‘heart in the right place’ (no insult/patronising indented), I can assume that you never entered politics to force the seriously mentally ill to pick up litter for the privilege of a benefit cheque, so does it bother you that it is happening?

Jim, I think you need to calm yourself somewhat. You claim that you ‘don’t judge people who join the Tory party’ a paragraph after saying that you question IDS’s commitment to the unemployed based on his membership of the Tory party. These are directly contradictory.

It feels to me that you struggle to distinguish between the majority of broadly right of centre Tories, and ACTUAL FASCISTS, and there is a real and massive gap between them. More to the point I believe you do a grave disservice to the victims of Fascism by conflating the two. Yes, I disagree with the political positions held by many Tories, and yes, there are members on the extreme of the party who hold disgusting views. But that is NOT the majority of the party.

Passion is great in Politics, but blind hatred is not. You appear unprepared to accept the concept that a Tory might have good intentions, and a genuine difference of opinion on how to ‘do the right thing’, instead attributing their behaviour to malice and ‘evil’.

A little perspective may be warranted.

Ed @ 71

Let me explain my position on a few of your points.

People join and support political parties for all sorts of reasons. I do not condemn anyone for joining any Party. The Labour Party have done some pretty evil things in the past thirteen years, including some of the things I now attack the Tories for. Fair enough, I am more than happy to condemn ‘evil’ policies where I see them and question supporters of that particular Party.

It is NOT my default position to condemn anyone based on what Party they joined whilst in University or who they voted for at the last general election. My gran was a life long Tory for reasons I fully understood and I had no interest in getting into an ideological debate with her, even when the poll tax bill landed on the door mat and she found it a terrible strain on her meagre pension. I am not interested is screaming ‘Well you would vote Tory’ at a seventy five year old woman.

Nor I am I particularly worried about the frustrated, unemployed guy who voted BNP at the last election, either to be honest. If someone on the bottom of the heap lashes out at the establishment via a thuggish gang of nutcases, then it is for the ‘establishment’ to get out on the streets and make sure his life improves to the point where can join civil society. If Labour loses votes to the BNP, then the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the Labour Party. We promised to learn the lessons of the past and if we are unwilling to tackle those underlying problems.

Now, here we get to the crucial part. Whilst I will not condemn the unemployed for using their vote to give ‘us’ a fright’, I have a real problem with people who vote BNP because they ‘tell the truth about the so called holocaust’, or they want to get rid of the Muslims, send ‘the blacks’ home or shut up the gays or whatever. Once you start ‘supporting’ holocaust deniers BECAUSE of their denial of the holocaust, or because they put shit through letterboxes etc. then, you become ‘scum’ in my eyes. I condemn that type of ideology without reservation. I feel that we ARE entitled to judge you on your political Party once you say things like there are too many mosques in London (or anywhere else) or there are too many ‘darkies’ etc. Once you start talking shit, we can label you as a shit for brains.

A fair distinction in my book.

IDS was a member of the Tory Party for whatever reason. Okay, let us not condemn him for that. Instead let us look at what that Party stood for, in the Eighties. This was a Party that drove millions onto the dole, millions more onto incapacity and huge swathes of the population into poverty. They targeted manufacturing industries with a huge bonfire of jobs and replaced those jobs with lower skilled, lower paid service jobs. They deliberately manipulated the supply of labour via interest rates in order depress wages, terms and conditions of the poorest workers in the Country.

Previous Tory leaders/Prime Ministers had previously put full employment as a priority. Not now though. Mass unemployment was (and still is) an intrinsic part of the economic strategy since the nineteen eighties. Now, we STILL need mass unemployment, but we cannot stomach the thought of the unemployed not working. So the strategy is not to return to full employment, but rather to ensure the unemployed form a cadre of forced labour, ready to undercut those in low paid work.

The people who support that strategy are not trying to do the ‘right thing’, these actions are not ‘good intentions, gone wrong’, this is about using the weakest members of society to destroy the lives of people one rung up the ladder. For what? A fucking few measley quid? Using a group of unemployed people to deprive a few others of what dignity they have? How I am I supposed to interpret that? What I am I missing, here? IDS stated he wanted to make work pay? Yeah? How exactly does giving huge multi-Nationals a self-perpetuating pool of free, unregulated labour, ‘make work pay’?

Why is it that I (admittedly not the most intelligent or articulate users of the blog) can see the glaringly obvious flaw in the strategy of attempting to shoehorn millions of people into an already saturated labour market, yet all these Tories, university educated, captions of industry and intrinsically ‘nice’ people have failed to spot? Why is that these Tories where unable to see that mass unemployment is a signal that there is a surplus of labour and not just a sign of laziness? Why is it that they can spot the flaw in the theory of Climate Change that the World’s climate scientists cannot?

Okay, perhaps the nasty 90% are getting the rest a bad name, but those 10% of decent Tories are keeping their powder dry. When will the decent Tories start to defend the interests of the weaker members of society? Previous Tory Governments have been instigators of great social reform and have made great improvements and progress in our society, but the vast majority of Tories now appear to be greedy selfish bastards. I hope I am wrong and would like to see proof of that. Where should I be looking for it?

Ed @ 71

Fascism. Yes I agree that the term is used and abused fairly frequently. Yes, I agree that throwing the word around is an injustice to all suffers of Fascism, both historically and worldwide today. I can assure I do not use the term lightly. No, speed cameras are not ‘fascism’, nor is curbs on under age drink or sex. Closing a library does not count, nor does banning cheese rolling. I could go on, but if fascism was confined to separating out recycling and having a bedtime for teenagers then our history would have been a bit more rosy.

However, having said that, I think that dehumanising the disabled, the mentally ill and the unemployed is. Forced labour counts as well. And as for kettling, well once you detain people without good cause, does it really matter if it done in a police cell, concentration camp or merely on the street? That is merely a question of degree, not principle.

Ed, let us be honest here. No-one, not even me, is suggesting we are Chile (they still have miners) or Nazi Germany, nor are we anywhere close. That does not mean we should become complacent and dismiss the things that are least got the potential to become far nastier or downright dangerous. We live in an age when it seems legitimate to vilify whole sections of our society. Where individual case of ‘immoral’ behaviour is somehow indicative of whole sections of our society. It seems there are people who attempt to make political movements from crusades against those least able to defend themselves. Not only that, but I also see that those of us who would normally take up the cudgels in defence of the mentally ill or the sick appear unwilling to do so for fear of being branded as ‘soft’ on the oppressed. We seem willing to let a few suffer humiliations so that the rest of us can get on with their lives. There are now supporters of ‘decent’ political parties that advocate that ‘the poor’ should not be allowed to breed and that child benefit be restricted. That is not a million miles from forced sterilisation (a policy advocated in some quarters)

For me at least, that equals the perfect breeding ground for fascism. Lets remain vigilant, Ed. You don’t need concentration camps to start springing before we can describe evidence of fascism.

To the editors of this blog. Please accept my apologies for abusing the comments policy. It was never my intention to do so, but having entered this debate late, I feel it necessary to put the record straight on a few ‘misconceptions’ regarding my positions on the above issues.

Thank you for your forbearance.

@57 Sally
Who is the troll on a troll site?

This post is a troll post. And that makes you the troll.

@64 Jim
“the operative word here is ‘could’”

…which is exactly my point.

This post proposes a ‘could’ scenario, and I propose an equally valid alternative ‘could’ scenario. Some of us are arguing which they think is preferable, some are arguing which they think is more probable, but its not easy to tell them all apart.

It’s almost universally assumed round here that any accurate discription of the LibDems must suggest they are worse than baby-eaters and the harshest viewpoint of any alternative must be the most accurate.

Obviously anyone who seeks a fair balance in the debate has fascist sympathies – but if anyone remembers, that line of thinking was what defeated Brown.

Not considering the full range of alternatives is bad politics, yet that’s what most of the commenters here do.

This blog states it wishes to raise the tone of debate but the audience LC attracts with posts like this and their behaviour does not help its cause. It is indicative of the incoherent thinking behind the opposition and a lack of any real intellectual leadership.

And if this doesn’t change the coalition can only be strengthened.

@70

“George, you appear a committed bloke and, if I was honest, you appear to have your ‘heart in the right place’ (no insult/patronising indented), I can assume that you never entered politics to force the seriously mentally ill to pick up litter for the privilege of a benefit cheque, so does it bother you that it is happening?”

Yes it does bother me the way disabled people are treated by the benefit system – having a disability myself and having a deaf half-brother I have a better understanding than most of what it can be like. It bothered me when the last government instituted a bureaucracy to bully the disabled into work when they were unable to and to generally make it as hard as possible for them to claim the help they were entitled to. It also bothers me when the current government does exactly the same thing only with replacing part of the bureaucracy with private companies instead. As a Lib Dem I’m very proud of our manifesto on this issue and I think it’s a crying shame we haven’t been able to implement it.

However, in general I support the welfare reforms as they will mean that for a lot of people on benefits, getting into work will be a lot easier and they will in fact have more money as a result. Tapered removal of benefits is plain common sense and I look forward to seeing it implemented. There are flaws in the reforms but overall they will be a net good – and that is something that I, as a Lib Dem, can be proud of.

@ 75 George W. Potter

“There are flaws in the reforms but overall they will be a net good – and that is something that I, as a Lib Dem, can be proud of.”

“Flaw” is quite a small word for a system that expects people to work for a couple of quid an hour if they don’t want to be cut off entirely, especially when many of those people will be disabled (especially those with mental illnesses), while a great many more may be simply unable to find work. If policy was to offer long-term unemployed people full-time work at minimum wage, you could call that tough but fair and possibly a very effective solution. As is, I see nothing to be proud of.

GWP @ 75

I think we can both agree that (New?) Labour’s work in this area was pretty disgusting in this regard. You are right to be ‘bothered’. However, two wrong do not make a right and it is type of thing many people voted Lib Dem in the first place. New Labour introduced a completely bureaucratic, top down, one size fits all system administered by an unaccountable private firm motivated by profit. Sure, I will condemn the Labour Party for introducing a flawed system, but surely to Christ Clegg’s position as king maker meant he could at least rectified this pretty evil piece of shit? It is not a ‘crying shame’ that we cannot show humanitity to these people. It is a scar on our society that those who cannot defend themselves.

I get the feeling that for many of us on the ‘vague’ left have found one aspect of this retched coalition, that the Cleggs, Laws and Cables of this World glibly announce that they have had to make ‘sacrifices’. I doubt that any of these people have made a single ‘sacrifice’ over the coalition.

The people who have made ‘sacrifices’ are those with little or no power to defend themselves. The people who have to struggle by because they have had their disability grant cut, for example. I have heard Lib Dems like Hughes and Kennedy announce that ‘tough decisions’ have to be made. Again that may be true, but it seriously makes you wonder why no tough decisions have been made.

As any playground bully knows, attacking the weakest members of that playground make the best targets. No one is surprised when the big, powerful bully kicks seven shades out of the lame kid or the young boy with learning difficulties.

You want to make ‘tough choices’? Why not revue Public school’s ‘charity status’? What about clawing back farm subsidies? Public sector pensions? Why not revue the huge amount of money given to ‘retired’ soldiers? If we cannot afford to give a dinner lady a pension, then surely giving young, healthy men a huge pension for the rest of their long life?

Ah, but those people CAN and WILL fight back, the have advocacy groups. Think back to the squaddie who was refused a benefit because he could ‘pass’ the same test as everyone else. They are media friendly and are ‘untouchable’. Far better to lay the boot into the ‘not very pretty, funny acting, mentally ill guy’ for whom no such effective advocacy group exists. There is nothing ‘tough’ about cutting a wheelchair user’s disability allowance. Hell if I had my conscience removed, I could do that.

GWP @75

However, in general I support the welfare reforms as they will mean that for a lot of people on benefits, getting into work will be a lot easier and they will in fact have more money as a result.

Have you any evidence for this? If someone has real barriers to work, can you explain who forcing them onto an already bloated labour market, which already rejected them, will make it ‘easier’ to find work? Given that IDS is already supplying companies with a huge pool of free labour, who is going to pay a handicapped person to work, when they can get a healthy person to do the work for free?

@78

Let me give you a very simple example. If someone becomes unemployed they receive certain benefits. This gives them a certain amount of money per week to live off of. However, under the current system, if they take a job they will immediately lose a substantial amount of benefits which means that (assuming they take a minimum wage job) they’ll actually be worse off in work than out of it. On top of that they’ll probably have to work long hours and, if they are parents, may well now have to find the money to pay for childcare on top of everything else. My father was in that exact position once and anyone with an ounce of sense can tell that a system like this is a failure at helping people back into work.

The new system will mean that working does not mean an immediate withdrawal of benefits. Instead the removal will be tapered so that it only gets completely removed after they are earning enough to live off of.

So, as an example, if you received £700 of benefits a month (housing benefit and JSA), and then you got a part time job for £500 a month your new income would be:

£500 (income) + (£700 – £500) + (£500 * 0.4) = £900.

So by taking that job you would be £200 better off while under the current system taking the job would leave you with a net loss.

This is why I support those parts of the reforms whilst hoping that the bad parts of it can be changed.