The Liberal Democrat Thread

I thought this was gonna be a gabbneb thread.

One of the dumbest reasons I've heard for not supporting Lib Dem is that "Oh, they never win, so what's the point?". This is the weakest form of defeatism I've ever seen.

Welcome to British politics: on one side, a power-tripping Cheshire cat vs a basically racist fuddy-duddy with less charisma than a mouldy steak and ale pie. Why is it that the people who talk the most sense in politics are the ones that are constantly shunned for their ambition and idealism?

But taking my idea that Lib Dems don't have sufficient balls further - why have any form of local taxation at all? Fact: 75% of local authority taxation comes stright from central government. Why have any local authority tax raising power at all? Cut admin costs by actually abolishing local taxation completely and allocate the whole lot from central government through income tax. The fact that the lib dems are calling for local income tax rather than a complete abolition of local taxation is an example of their timorous nature. Be bold! And demonstrate yr sense of European siblinghood by learning from our European partners - in Spain, there is no local taxation and my Spanish colleagues are genuinely perplexed by the UK's two tier tax system.

Mebbe the lib dems wouldn't remodel the UK on the Swiss model, but they would come closer to it than any of the other parties!

Is this about other countries and stuff?

as for switzerland: wtf? "we will defend our borders against attack from outside, but if anyone tells us to particpate in a foreign war, well, they can sit on _¦_ and spin!"
talking about swiss ethics is the funniest thing ever, given its primary souce of income. i guess 'foreign war' here includes germany vs france, which made life interesting. but in the real world i do not get the feeling that the lib dems would have gone against bush. they're so inconsistent there's no knowing what they'd do. and i voted for them too!

dave b otm on the lib dems' actual policies now. i don't see how disgruntled socialists can vote for them given that they are to the right *even of labour* on most economic issues.

Does he sound thirsty enough?

So what to Lib Dem supporters think of the fact that the new young bloods in the party want to move it to the Right?

"The Lib Dems are stating that the environment will run through the core of their policies, but this seems at odds with their other aims of better dental care, and a reduction in obesity."

WHAT TEH FUCK IS HE TALKING ABOUT??? What has one got to do the the other?

96 Brighton Pavilion - (2001:Lab/Co-op Hold)
Region: South East County: East Sussex

2001 General Election
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7th June 2001  Lab/Co-op Hold
Candidate Party Vote %age Change
*David Lepper Lab/Co-op 19846 48.73% -5.89%
David S Gold Con 10203 25.05% -2.64%
Miss Ruth L Berry LD 5348 13.13% 3.65%
Keith Taylor Grn 3806 9.35% 6.79%
Ian Fyvie SLP 573 1.41%
Bob Dobbs Ind 409 1.00%
Stuart Hutchin UKIP 361 0.89% 0.52%
Ms Marie Paragallo PLA 177 0.43%
maj 9643 23.68%
 
Turnout 58.85%
Electorate 69200
Wasted Votes 20316 49.89%
 
Changes in Votes
Lab/Co-op -6891
Con -3353
LD 704
Grn 2557
Ind 284
UKIP 182

A sniff of (coalition) power in Scotland and they binned their "no negotiation on tuition fees" stance in a fucking nanosecond.

Typical of any minority party they can make all the noises they want about radical changes to tax, health, education, environment, etc. but given the chance to wield such power I'm fairly sure you'd see it stripped down to resemble the lack of ambition that has typified the current administration.

I'm not even going to go into the complete fucking shambles Lib Dems have made at a local level in my constituency.

I'm sticking with None Of The Above until someone convinces me otherwise. I might vote for some single issue twonk in a funny suit.

Please vote for someone at least. I honestly think you can't complain about any political party unless you use your right to vote.

you can't complain about any political party unless you use your right to vote
Does voting for the winner preclude one from complaining about them? If someone is making an arse of running my country I reserve the right to complain regardless of whether I voted or not.
The fact that up to 40% of people in the country do not use their vote is reason enough to complain about *every* political party.

Ye should've seen ma faither's heid, it wis THIS BIG.

Particularly this bit:
To be sure, there are important differences between Labour and the Lib Dems that go deeper than cultural and historic animosity. Labour remains the only party for the dispossessed, where its heartlands remain. Despite control of Liverpool, Newcastle and other urban territories, Lib Dem political roots are still in middle England. Lib Dem policy-making has a tin ear for questions of equality and class. They are nice people from nice places, and their policies are not aimed at the poor. Where in Kennedy's speech yesterday was Labour's great pledge to end child poverty?

Overwhelmingly OTM. That's why they don't really do unions; nice people don't need unions; they negotiate their own salaries.

However, the LDs are, we must remember, the result of a merger between the Social Democrat Party and the Liberal Party. I'd need to examine the history in more detail, but the Libs were apparently much less Atlanticist (certainly than the likes of David Owen). And quite tellingly, the SDP was itself split over economic issues; the likes of Shirley Williams and Roy Jenkins can hardly be claimed as Thatcherites, they supported a sort of One Nation, moderate socialism. David Owen seems like a prototype Blair in many ways, however...

I myself would at this minute vote for the LDs, but would be much happier doing so if I could be surer they were in the Lloyd-George/Roy Jenkins lineage, rather than that of the earlier-19th Century 'economic liberals'/David Owen - which these Orange Book scribes seem to be. It seems they've made so much progress in recent years by standing so strongly against the war in Iraq and for higher taxes for the top band earners etc. It would be real folly for them to become more Thatcherite. I myself would rather like a party that had the economic policy of Gordon Brown, the social policies of Simon Hughes and the political guts of Ken Livingstone, say.

They could do with a few more ambitious goals (35 hour maximum working week anyone?), which Labour at least are looking towards, and less talk of 'Freedom'. I'm utterly sick of the way this word is twisted; freedom for private companies to make profits out of PUBLIC SERVICES seems to me what the word amounts to when used by a New Labour 'moderniser' or one of these LD right-wingers.

I was talking to my mum about this last night (I had actually forgotten about the by-election and it just came up in conversation) and whereas there is possibly no doubt this is a protest vote, there's a real possibility it could actually carry over to the election. Plus a lot of protest voters didn't actually vote for the Lib Dems and could switch to them to keep Labour out come the election.

Prominent Lab figures are being disingenuous, however. Their decision to waive Parliamentary rules and allow their candidate to stand without resigning first as an MEP I think betrays some uncertainty as to whether they could actually win.

Let's not lose sight of how fundamentally in Lab heartland this is though, firmly in "strategically shave a monkey, put it in a suit with a red rosette and watch it win with a 10,000 majority" territory.

The funniest bit is: it's also Gordon Brown's constituency. He lives on Ferryhills Road in North Queensferry.

their one scottish seat: dumfriesshire, clydesdale and tweeddale

Having said that the local tories were, by all accounts, split over their own candidate so that probably didn't help matters.

Bollocks. There was never going to be a Cameron Effect in Dunfermline, even if Jesus Christ was leading the Tories no-one in Dunfermline would vote for them.

Having a shiny new leader and being up against a government facing protest votes aplenty and still losing almost half of your votes in a widely reported by-election is a bad result regardless of where it is.

I'll rephrase that: even if Jim Leishman was leading the Tories no-one in Dunfermline would vote for them

i was hearing lots of pro-huhne noises and not a lot else for most of the last week...

Blogspot seems to be having problems with Firefox and not dishing up new content when you reload the page. I don't know why this happens, but when it does you can hit ctrl-reload a couple of times to get a real reload. Tell your friends...

-Atrios 1:00 PM

Comments (182) Trackback (0)

Thanks, M.

USOCRAZEE

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,,2124418,00.html

Someone put Menzies out of his misery already.

Seriously, this is the political party of shagging Romanian novelty pop acts and getting rent boys to shit in your suitcase. Can't we have a new third party?

RIP

Ming is so covered in make-up in that photo he looks like Buster Keaton.

He looks like he's trying to shit in a suitcase to me.

Srsly worst attempt to young up ever.

Someone put Menzies the Liberal Democrats out of his their misery already.

But seriously, let's have all you "left wing" (aye, right) Liberal Democrats try to explain this one then.

explain me why this is such a bad/desperate move.

What, cutting taxes in a desperate bid to hold on to selfish right wing scumbag South of England voters?

almost guaranteed not to add up.

"Under our proposals tax cuts for the majority will be paid for by the wealthy minority, as well as those with environmentally damaging lifestyles."

practically EVERYONE leads an environmentally damaging lifestyle.

i'm all for taxing the rich but they're canny motherfuckers. and unfortunately no matter how sick city bonuses etc are, they'll still be a drop in the ocean next to a 4% cut in the tax take among the citizenry.

a local income tax is only viable if local authorities can set agendas separately from westminster. tbh i think that's true in any case but hey ho that's thatcher-blair for you.

that said if you moralize taxation as tom has, it cuts both ways. if you say 'selfish' your oppo is honour-bound to say 'idle'.

Oh shut up

I mean, "if you say 'selfish' your oppo is honour-bound to say 'idle'" What does that mean?

you're saying this proposed scheme is no good purely because it would appeal to 'selfish right wing scumbag SOUTH OF ENGLAND voters' (but how exactly?) - rather than because it's unworkable or idealistic somehow?

No, but I can't really be arsed talking about it, so I thought I'd amuse myself instead

it's shitty politics. 'vote for us or we'll call you selfish' is a loser. and it kind of refers to about 1/4 - 1/3 of the population? and probably a fair number of them are not golf-playing sherry-drinking bastards.

tax isn't something to moralize about, it's pretty straightforward.

I guess if you don't want decadent luxuries like schools or hospitals or public services of even the basest standard then cutting taxes would look to be an attractive option.

Seeing as hospitals are now officially on the way out then half the ground's already been laid.

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.... Golf? Sherry?

Of course tax is something to moralise about. It is immoral that rich scunners are getting away without paying enough. The proposed stamp duty threshold change and IHT threshold will just serve to stoke the housing market and to keep wealth in the hands of the wealthy,

i play Wii Golf and eat sherry trifle

I think I am morally superior to you

who are these SE england scumbags? what are they actively doing to be called selfish etc? seriously, that's like 20m-odd people.

Of course tax is something to moralise about. It is immoral that rich scunners are getting away without paying enough. The proposed stamp duty threshold change and IHT threshold will just serve to stoke the housing market and to keep wealth in the hands of the wealthy,

-- Ed, Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:13 PM (37 seconds ago) Bookmark Link

it's not "immoral," it's that we have a timid government who won't act because is afraid of the rich leaving the country because the city is big dogg.

seriously, that's like 20m-odd people

I have met them all personally and they are all scumbags - that much must be obvious, even over the internet

the daily mail is full of moralizing about taxation. if you want to tangle with them, go4it, but after 25 years of governments of both sides encouraging what you call 'selfishness' ('choice') and massive migration to the SE, good luck with that.

I'm only here for a joke, a laugh, a song and a dance, what are you here for?

music recommendations, hook-ups

Hook-ups? With who exactly?

i started this by posting USOCRAZEE and now i'm like, well yeah but otoh kind of unusual (even good) to see a party diverging from the others in the smallest respect innit? my main thing is just that people won't buy into so-called 'green taxes' because they're locked into whatever they're into and the lib dems need to also propose how to get them out of that.

energy-use-wise.

Green Tax + tax relief cuts for DA SUPER-RICH SELFISH RIGHT-WING SCUMBAGS OF SOUTHERN ENGLAND to make up tax shortfall = too unrealistic then? but these poor people want their cheap flights and to not have to think about recycling properly (social responsibility) too...just like the rich.

MINGUS CAMPBELL SAYS: "LET THE POOR HORSE AND CART IT"

But aren't rich MIDDLE CLASS (I thought I'd throw that one in to the mix) scumbags the most enthusiastic recyclers of the lot?

no match for your enthusiastic recycling of this schtick

What shtick?

(sp?)

Green Tax + tax relief cuts for DA SUPER-RICH SELFISH RIGHT-WING SCUMBAGS OF SOUTHERN ENGLAND to make up tax shortfall = too unrealistic then? but these poor people want their cheap flights and to not have to think about recycling properly (social responsibility) too...just like the rich.

-- blueski, Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:27 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

the super-rich private equity non-dom (russian, plutocrat blah blah blah) should be taxed, obv, but that won't really make a hill o'beans.

the green tax will have to do the heavy work. it will work if they can organize a way by which people travel around without doing what they're doing now? i dunno, i don't even drive. this shit would probably benefit me, only i don't have a job so wvs.

"Low- and middle-income earners in this country shoulder too heavy a tax burden."

Too heavy (and unfair) a proportion of the tax burden, yes

But I'm not going along with this "We pay too much tax in this country" Radio 5 phone-in nonsense

it's partly about control of how it's spent though. in the health service it's jizzed all over incompetent and negligent private contractors and consultants. so do we pay too much tax? yeah kind of, it's a shitty quid pro quo, both for SE england scumbags and, er, everyone else who uses hospitals.

We don't pay too much tax

"Lifestyle" taxes always unfairly discriminate against the poor. This is 30 plus years of economic policy tho: at least from Thatcher, arguably from Heath introducing VAT. Shift the emphasis on revenue from income tax to direct taxes, you shift the burden from the rich to the poor. Green taxes = cars for them that can afford them, just like the Tories' proposals to stop poor people from getting drunk.

Clearly we don't pay "too much" tax as a nation, but if people think they want low taxation then they will continue to get the governments they deserve, while the rest of us fuck off at the first opportunity.

too much taxpayers money is wasted (well duh)

"we may not pay too much tax but we do pay too much for substandard goods and services inc. property"

Gary, Bracknell

Green taxes = cars for them that can afford them

But it won't necessarily be one tax on all cars. Presumably it'll be higher rates of tax on the biggest and most polluting vehicles, and lower taxes on more efficient models. Or higher taxes on fuel so it'd amount to the same thing. So it'll just be big cars for those that can afford them.

Clearly we don't pay "too much" tax as a nation, but if people think they want low taxation then they will continue to get the governments they deserve

Yes, and thank you Ming for your contribution

"Lifestyle" taxes always unfairly discriminate against the poor. This is 30 plus years of economic policy tho: at least from Thatcher, arguably from Heath introducing VAT. Shift the emphasis on revenue from income tax to direct taxes, you shift the burden from the rich to the poor. Green taxes = cars for them that can afford them, just like the Tories' proposals to stop poor people from getting drunk.

Clearly we don't pay "too much" tax as a nation, but if people think they want low taxation then they will continue to get the governments they deserve, while the rest of us fuck off at the first opportunity.

-- Noodle Vague, Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:47 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Link

otm. but you can't separate mismanagement and bad, unrepresentative government from questions of taxation. even a cursory reading of jefferson would teach us that. the government doesn't have a divine right to levy money when it has bad ideas about what to do with it. i would think that's straightforward.

without any kinds of popular participation in politics now the unions and mass membership of parties are gone, the *only* mandate the government has is the general election. it's a pretty atrophied version of democracy.

if people think they want low taxation then they will continue to get the governments they deserve, while the rest of us fuck off at the first opportunity.

people don't want low taxation, though. they have voted in a government which has raised taxes a shitload? wtf?

but economy and employment improved in tandem with tax rise no?

Higher taxes on fuel still hits the poor harder than the rich. And running older, less fuel-efficient vehicles that are big enough to fit your family inside isn't just a rich thing either.

What the Lib Dems are doing here is inneresting because this has become the central problem of any party that wants to increase economic equality in the UK. The low income tax mentality has been pretty solid for 30 years. You can try appealing to people's sense of morality, and tell them they ought to pay more tax. That doesn't seem to have been a vote winner. So you have to find ways of achieving your agenda that assume that people are basically self-serving and not given to grand altruistic gestures during elections. I don't think this suggestion is the right way to go about it, but it's driven by the same basic problems that have been bugging the Labour party since they expelled all the socialists.

ask gareth re. economy.

unemployment is huge really. government fiddling of figures improved tho.

The low income tax mentality has been pretty solid for 30 years.

waht? uk doesn't have low income tax.

they have voted in a government which has raised taxes a shitload?

They have?

xxpost

And yes, if there wasn't such a common belief that the government, national and local, was pissing huge amounts of money away inefficiently then taxes mightn't be such an issue. But it's funny that people/the media still focus so much on Income Tax when the real changes have been taking place elsewhere. It's like the patter that distracts the audience from what the magician is akshully doing.

Our income tax rates are far lower than they were pre-1979, dude. Without getting all Googly I don't know how they compare currently to other western countries. I suspect they're lower than most.

Never mind, he's just looking for a pointless argument, as usual

why look for a pointless argument when you could just do a little joke, song and dance

That's my philosophy in a nutshell

And yes, if there wasn't such a common belief that the government, national and local, was pissing huge amounts of money away inefficiently then taxes mightn't be such an issue

Well it does serve the supporters of low taxation to encourage such beliefs, after all

I think there's a lot of point to this argument. And mostly I agree with Togthiaqi.

Albeit that I'm gonna shrug it off, think "fuck the electorate" and go to watch Hannah's sports day in 5 minutes.

Well it does serve the supporters of low taxation to encourage such beliefs, after all

Therefore they aren't true?

It's not black and white here, already

"they have voted in a government which has raised taxes a shitload?"

They have?

-- Tom D., Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:01 PM (21 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yes: the rise in NI, massive and centrally mandated rises in council tax, the drag on raising thresholds of income tax, stamp duty and inheritance tax...

Our income tax rates are far lower than they were pre-1979, dude. Without getting all Googly I don't know how they compare currently to other western countries. I suspect they're lower than most.

-- Noodle Vague, Thursday, July 12, 2007 1:03 PM (19 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

i'm aware that the top rate has been cut. need to get googly about other countries. it's very complex in france so far as i can tell.

it's ridiculous to dismiss the argument that government has been incompetent by saying it's just low-taxer propaganda. you could justify anything that way, just out of fidelity to... paying tax. but the point about mismanagement is it funnels tax towards the private sector via PFIs and assorted wonks and dodgy IT jobs. so it's not like squandered money is even benefitting people who need it.

Who said it was just low-taxer propaganda? Can you stop jumping to conclusions that suit you, for once?

Can you stop jumping to conclusions that suit you, for once?

cutting taxes in a desperate bid to hold on to selfish right wing scumbag South of England voters?

And how does that "suit me"?

how does it suit me though? i've spent most of my life employed by the state in one way or another.

It suits you, in this current discussion, to draw certain (wrong) conclusions about what other people are saying - if, only for no other reason than it gives you the chance to keep the pot boiling/ fires stoked etc.

That's all I mean.

Has Minge outlined the LibDems green tax plans somewhere? Transport aside, what areas is he targeting?

that is the question

Great thread.

Where?

lol

Confused americans to thread..

HI DERE

Hah Liberal Democrats, I remember those guys.

Nick Clegg

I could give a shit about these wankers but the "too old" stuff was some offensive bollocks from the get-go.

He looks older than 66.

What will be Ming's dynasty?

Prevented this country from having a major party political leader who enjoys having rent boys shit on him.

AS FAR AS WE KNOW

Ming Mercilessly Made over.

Fucking better be Huhne as next leader. If they elect Clegg, they may as well just take themselves outside and let the vet put a bullet through their skull.

predicted private eye meme: Chris Huhe?

On the Charlie Kennedy thread at the time, I said:

But now, the gloves are off. Campbell might offer the unideological answer by virtue of his apparent stature trumping all (especially for a party which will fear navel gazing), but the leadership contest after this might be the undoing of them when stature will accrue to none, and they're left with simple policy positions on left and right to choose from.

Could be remarkably prescient. Mind you, on this thread, I did say i didn't think Brown would ever be PM.

Anyway, much more importantly, where is that picture of Kennedy in a pub with a fox?

I see no other contender than this man:

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Politics/Pix/pictures/2004/02/09/Lembit.jpg

Ooh, Cheeky.

kirsty wark just said "shower of shits"

Awesome.

The Roger Mellie strip with the Mark Oaten punchline from a few years back is probably the best Viz cartoon this decade.

Hughes says he won't stand.

kirsty wark just said "shower of shits"

-- blueski, Monday, October 15, 2007 10:41 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Link

ysi?

WE WANT LEMBIT

Seriously, they'd be fucking stupid not to choose him. Defending the world from asteroids is a real vote winner.

Funny how when the Liberal Democrat vote collapses, the Tories benefit. Bastards. Both of them.

kirsty wark just said "shower of shits"

Don't tell Mark Oaten.

Funny how when the Liberal Democrat vote collapses, the Tories benefit.

is it always this way though? or is it that both the tories and the lib dems are currently opposition parties and thus both benefit from disgruntlement, protest votes, etc?

It always has been they have traditionally been two sides of the establishment coin. I guess it wasn't quite so clear cut during the SDP/early liberal democrat years when there was a social democrat wing of the party now that post Ashdown/Kennedy they have returned to being the Liberal party the system is just reverting although there is, of course, a third Liberal/Conbservative party now so it is a three sided coin.

yeah to be fair labour is itself kind of a breakaway movement from the liberal party...

is it always this way though?

Seems that way to me. I know I'm biased but I've always thought you don't need to scratch too far below the surface of a Liberal to find a Tory. A lot of them seem like "nice" Tories without the courage of their true convictions.

I think the Lib Dems are still further to the "Left" - whatever that is now - than the old Liberal party, if for no other reason than that they've spent the last 20 years honing election strategy, so that they represent a convincing alternative for Labour or Tory voters on a constituency-by-constituency basis. Some of it's sheer cynicism, I'm sure, but I guess there must also be Lib Dems who genuinely believe they have some sort of distinctive ideology.

Although to agree with Tom I'm still very fond of the phrase I heard as a child: "a Liberal's nowt but a Tory wi'out his kicking boots on".

And yet their main constituency is still Tory voters, when it gets down to it (xp)

not really. the two high-profile gains they made in 2005 (that just happen to be two places i've lived in), cambridge and hornsey, were from labour, and i would wager on a mostly anti-war, anti-new labour ticket rather than pro-tory.

to put it another way: why would a 'labour voter' vote labour? all that awesome pfi and neocon foreign policy -- or just the rolling out of police state measures? a lot to choose from.

Yeah, I was just gonna say that New Labour's key (not main) constituency is probably the same. They're all "Yay Capitalism!" parties now.

not really. the two high-profile gains they made in 2005 (that just happen to be two places i've lived in), cambridge and hornsey, were from labour, and i would wager on a mostly anti-war, anti-new labour ticket rather than pro-tory.

Which suggests to me a high proportion of Not-In-My-Namers in both constituencies. Overall, however, look at where the Liberal seats are and, more to the point, look at where they're going to LOSE come the next election.

not seeing the LibDems as being significantly closer to Tories than Labour post Blair.

Tens of thousands of ex-Liberal voters deserting to vote Tory would disagree, obviously

ok tom i think we know where you stand on this one

My theory is this. At any given time, there are wedge issues which parties coalesce around; one party has a broad consensus on one approach to the issue, and another takes a polar opposite view. In such times, the third party seems to me to more a psychological reaction against having to choose; whilst people supporting the parties either side of the wedge are clear that this is the big one, the third party either don't agree or find it all a bit binary. Those points may be true, but the fundemanetal wellsrping of their position is not ideological or political in the same way. In the current climate, Lib Dems have always seemed to resent two-partism as much as anything. It's the one thing they all agree on. But because many members are inclined towards one side of the wedge, they can't scratch too deep lest they essentially make the wegde they're all fleeing from apparent in their own ranks. That's why, after years of asking, I've yet to have anything looking like a coherent ideology from members of the Lib Dems. They usually say 'we're for freedom' which is fine, but it's too malleable a concept to form the underpinnings of a party, ideologically speakiing.

Now, back in the day, it seems to me that free trade aside, the key defining issue of the mid-to-late 19th Century - the wedge issue - was political justice. Should more people have the vote, what were the rights workers would have to organise etc. The Liberals tended to line up on one side, because political liberty was something they realised flowed from their core conception of themselves as Liberals. Similarly, the Tories were defined by being very worried by all this democracy nonsense, as the party of the established order.

Once the franchise is extended, the Liberals become a major beneficiary, and crucailly, seeing as they're the party of the upper-working and lower middle classes, the people who championed their right to vote and the right to organsie in Unions, they're the people who do well.

But as soon as these people are in the system, the economic issues of inequality come into the fore. The Tories are still alright on this one - their platform allows them to be as opposed to economic justice as they were to political justice, but the Liberals are torn. They recognise that there is a sense in which economic and political justice are linked, but they also recognise how if you are to tackle economic justice, some tenets of their platform suffer. For example, giving all the vote is fine, but taking money off others to redistribute can be argued against on liberal grounds (cf libertarianism). They also see how improvements in public health and education require compulsion to really work, which again causes problems. And finally, the fact that Liberals were the party of many of the industrial middle and upper-middle class meant that giving the workers the vote was one thing, but giving them more wages was quite another.

This tension sees the Liberals as the party of labour and also the party of capital to some extent; it's a tension affecting the tories in places, but the liberals are the ones caught on the horns. Increasingly, the failure of the liberals to decisviely act in the interests of labour cause new parties to be formed, leading to the LRC in 1906; it's no coincidence that the radical budget of 1909 comes soon after the LRC gets a strong footing in Parliament, and the threat of the Labour Party, latent for around 20-30 years, becomes actual.

The failure of the Liberals to recognise the new wedge issue and act accordingly meant that they slowly became irrelevant; people voting for them from habit rather than where they perceived their interests. Add in the vanity of Lloyd George to himself and the party suffers from a weak head and a dying body, and the Labour Party supplants it as the party of change, in opposition to the Tories USP of the party of little change really.

This carries on merrily for a few years, but a combination of new smaller wedge issues - Europe, feminism, environmentalism et al - added to by the failure of the main parties to hold true to their brand promise of keeping things going nicely causes the meltdown of two-partyism in 1974. Add in here that the Tories had begun to move away from being against change of any real form to being pretty radical, at least until 1972. Then the Labour Party with Wilson's claim of being the natural party of government, and the political cross-dressing of the big two starts to undermine them.

They response of all major parties is to pretend there are no wedge issues; economic justice is achieved, and we simply manage our way through competing policies which are fundamentally in the same terrain. But the wedge issues don't go away, and I think there's a realignment a coming in the next 10-15 years, and the wedge is (for want of a better way of putting it) Climate Change and Peak Oil and the impacts therof. The Tories, as usual, are sitting pretty. They'll nicely continue to be able to be positioned as the party of doing feck all about it, the party of people who don't really see what all the fuss about.

Labour are in a much more dangerous position, as parties of change usually are by new wedge issues coming up. Like the liberals in the 19th Century, they've been the most progressive on climate change of the two big parties, but they're torn by the twin pressures of the recognition of the problem and their committed desire for economic growth as the way to avoid the need to challenge capitalism (the historic compromise of labourism being its rejection of revolutionary politics by eshewing radical redistribution in favour of increasing economic output and ensuring more of the new output goes to the disaffected). For a classic example of this, see when Goerge Galloway looks at a smoke filled Dundonian skyline, and in contrast to an environmentalist who laments the sight, he smiles and says 'I see jobs'.

So how will they react? I genuinely don't think they can get to grips with it. I think they've gone too far down the track of conservatism to reverse back and do what needs to be done. I hope not in many senses, but, like the 1909 Budget, really progressive stuff will only come when they feel the breath of a rival on their necks. Hence why I've joined the Green Party.

Anyway,

Tens of thousands of ex-Tory voters deserting to vote Blair would deny it too probably, not that anyone here did that!

dave i will read all that but you are totally wrong about 19th century tories -- they were not "defined by being very worried by all this democracy nonsense", they introduced mass suffrage, blindsiding the liberals. "Once the franchise is extended, the Liberals become a major beneficiary" -- no, it kept the liberals out for ages.

it was only in 1906 that the liberals recovered. and that was partly because of the blowback from the boer war.

That's why, after years of asking, I've yet to have anything looking like a coherent ideology from members of the Lib Dems.

it keeps coming back to this. party politics and not seeing things in black and white just won't ever mix.

Yes and no. The party politics we have now tend to cast issues in black and white. As a generalisation you're kind of saying that the only alternative is some kind of freethinking individualism. Parties form, at least in part, because they are more effective ways of exerting pressure on the polity than individual action.

Imagine it like the formation of planets. There's loads of rocks and gases which slowly start to cohere together. Some become great rocky planets, and others become great gassy giants. What unites them all is that they're all pretty spherical and all start from a group of rocks and gases starting to unite.

But the Lib Dems are more like the asteroid belt - defined by not having developed in the same way as the others, and owing their existence to the relative difference from others rather than any inherent planet-ness.

Anyway, party politics doesn't rely on black and white, but does require a worldview of some form which can guide thinking as to what to do about issues. Labour used to have its take on what to do, informed by a philosophical view. The Tories ditto. But the Liberals? The nearest I can get to it is Father Ted saying 'down with this sort of thing'.

Saying party politics is all about being black and white is black and white

I don't think the Greens have a coherent world view, really. And they certainly have plenty of crypto-Tories in their ranks. Parties used to be more like broad-based coalitions than coherent ideologies, surely? The Labour Party's never been Socialist in a meaningful way, but there was a time when it was a party of the Left.

i was going to use a planets-style analogy myself before dave's ha ha

Labour used to have its take on what to do, informed by a philosophical view. The Tories ditto. But the Liberals? The nearest I can get to it is Father Ted saying 'down with this sort of thing'.

well that's not very Liberal! but isn't the whole point of the party to seek and occupy middle ground i.e. recognise and agree with particulars of both philosophical views? if a coherent ideology based on agreeing with some right-wing arguments and some left-wing arguments is not actually workable then would they have survived this long already even without long-term success? but they've always had critics interpreting it as fence-sitting, indecision and inconsistency - occupational hazards, but natural consequences of a party in that position. you'd have to look at how their regional councils perform, if you can find enough of them (;) to detect patterns.

but i can't articulate very well about this without sounding like a sixth-former :(

Well they're in charge in Hull now, and in a city famously lumbered with bent, violent, self-satisfied Labour councils the Lib Dems have managed to fuck shit up to the next level.

the worst of both worlds it is then

I sometimes wish the Liberal Democrats were more classically liberal. I realise there is such a faction within the party, and I'm not sure I'd vote for such a party, but it'd at least give them some solid principles and direction, and would make them very distinct from the other two parties.

i was thinking about that too. they'd be too like Boris J in party form then tho. lots of entertaining 'controversy' but people would end up just taking them even less seriously at elections.

yes even less than now

Possibly. I think to maintain credibility they'd need to comprimise on law and order issues somewhat, and take a slightly more Blairite line. But I think they could still stand by their views on national DNA databases, detention without trial, and ID cards for example, and remain popular with much of their base. I also think they could talk tougher on foreign policy but stress the need to stay within international law and the UN. Couple that with a right of centre economic policy, but with an emphasis on localism and green taxes, and I think they'd be a very attractive party to a lot of people.

... you could be describing Cameron's Tories there - or one of the many versions that Cameron pulls out, depending on who he's talking to at the time

and remain popular with much of their base

Who exactly is their "base"?

Who exactly is their "base"? people who voted LD in the 2001 and 2005 elections

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa that really doesn't sound too far away from where they are now. if they get their very own young-looking vaguely charismatic leader (as tough as england left winger but could happen) they could iron out these creases within 6 months.

Maybe you're right, but they need to get on message more if so. I remember for the last general election, their manifesto had some quite heavy deregulatory stuff in it (like abolishing the DTI, IIRC) but their tax raising pledges obscured all of that (Ming has sensibly reversed that obviously). Oh, and by their `base' I suppose I mean the woollies--their soft left activists and south-western voters, a large proportion of the student population etc.

The more I think about it... maybe Kennedy wouldn't be that bad a new leader? Assuming he doesn't actually drink a bottle of meths on national TV, I mean.

Right, Kennedy would be good, but if they pick Nick Clegg it's suicide.

within the labour party people are talking about ed balls as successor.

so really a practising alcoholic could walk this thing.

Kennedy would send a terrible message, true as it may be.

I have no idea what the idea behind electing Clegg is. That they may get the votes for Cameronites whose local Conservative candidate took a shit on their doorstep so they're desperate for another option?

markoaten.joke

^^^My instictive reaction is to distrust statements of the kind which imply there's no difference between candidates/parties. Clegg seems to fit in with what I was talking about--a serious alternative which nevertherless addresses my concerns about authoritarianism in both the other parties.

Clegg is just going to be Cameron minus Tory Guilt though, surely?

I still see Cameron as authoritarian. We all know he'd back ID cards, national DNA databases, extended detention without arrest etc, if it weren't Labour policy. I don't see that happening with Clegg. Plus, he won't have a bunch of social conservatives standing behind him.

Clegg is absolutely nothing like Cameron.

orly?

Well, they look alike, which may actually be a problem, I'll give you that.

Worth watching: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/video/2007/sep/14/nick.clegg

If he doesn't like a drink I'm not voting for him

Of course it's Clegg. At least his name rhymes which would be good for headline writers if they ever bother to write any stories about the LibDems.

Idiots. Why vote for this clown when you can vote for Cameron?

there are some champion pix dropping on the wires of huhne trying to look magnanimous. and failing really miserably.

rly, though: careometer, etc.

(actually, no: my vague not-giving-a-fuck about the libdems has gelled into genuine loathing having watched the behaviour over the past eight years of the scottish party. a less democratic, more self-serving bunch of cockshafts it would be hard to find. they make even scottish labour look almost palatable.)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=HNX4S0N13PTRLQFIQMFSFGGAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2007/12/19/nclegg519.xml

oh dear

Nick Clegg enlists Brian Eno as an advisor

[...]

Announcing Mr Eno as his advisor, he said the singer, currently recording with Coldplay and U2, had been given a brief to bring in ideas on reaching out beyond the London beltway. In particular, and despite being 59 himself, Mr Eno has been instructed to advise the Liberal Democrats on how to appeal to young people.

Mr Clegg said: “I’m delighted Brian Eno, whose whole life has been outside politics, will be advising me on how we can reach out beyond Westminster to people who don’t get a say in politics.”

hahahahahahaha

xpost

michael white (no relation) had a great bit about this today:

In the fight not to become the next leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg yesterday lost to Chris Huhne. With just 511 votes between the two candidates it was close.

But Mr Clegg's passive and ineffectual campaign clinched victory for his rival among traditional party activists.

In a speech to supporters at St Martin's Hotel in London's West End, the new leader immediately promised to hand over direction of party policy to non-Liberals, including "a network of families who have nothing to do with party politics". He was cheered wildly.

As he pumped the air passionately with both hands Leader Clegg looked as if he was trying to shake the satsuma out of the bottom of his Christmas stocking. At only 40 such childhood memories remain powerful at this time of year.

What exactly are the Lib Dems politics? Are they classic liberals/libertarians? A further left party than Labor? Some combination of both? (how?)

nobody knows

Depends where you are in the country

clegg is an atheist who hangs out with eno

i'm interested

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7151346.stm

He could've come out as a Satanist for all the difference it'll make to his odds of being elected.

i know...

sorta hoped libs would overtake the tories to become the main opposition, but if they couldn't do that against ian fuckin duncan smith, what chance have they got with cameron?

Clegg said his favorite album is 'Changes'.

You mean the album Mickey and Davy made after Mike had left? Respec'

http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B0000033EB.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

If they have the balls, they should get Eno on in a by-election. And have him drink his own piss in front of Brown and Cameron.

Cue photo of smiling Clegg and Eno, down the local boozer, drinking pints of piss

With Basil Brush.

God, I hope the Conservatives rope in Otis Ferry. That would be fucking great.

(Unfortunately, Dad has prior commitments with the BNP!)

Otis Ferry is no Tory. He just really, really hates foxes.

Oh, he hates Fox? Rupert Murdoch? He's not one of those socialists is he?

Socialistic like a bendy bus, that boy.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7151346.stm

He could've come out as a Satanist for all the difference it'll make to his odds of being elected.

-- The blue-green world is drenched with horse gore, Thursday, 20 December 2007 00:16 (10 hours ago) Bookmark Link

In the photo accompanying in that story it looks like some journalist just asked him how many MPs he expected to still have in the Tory heartlands come the next election

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44309000/jpg/_44309959_clegg_leader_pa_body.jpg

Oh it worked!

He later said he had "enormous respect for people who have religious faith", that his wife is Catholic and that his children are being brought up Catholic.

what the fuck. guy just sounds mental.

Sounds like a Liberal to me

his children are being brought up Catholic.

... in the hope that they won't have to go to school with a lot of black kids and poor people

Yet another politician who lies through their teeth - there is One True God, the Holy Trinity - Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

by JohnKellett December 19th, 2007 at 7:07 pm

they should get more credit for being against iraq, i reckon.

I LIKE THIS GUY.

http://politicalbetting.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/FT%20Nick%20Clegg.JPG

RIP big men, looking forward to Britain's third party being UKIP or George Galloway's Fantabulous World Of Socialism and Sharia.

This is a principled decision from a mature, principled party who are all about the principles, oh yes.

i was going to link sonething lembit opik said about sarkozy and bruni the other day but why bother? bunch of menks.

You mean this: "Just because a politician has an attractive partner, that doesn't make them worse at politics.

"Maybe it actually makes them better and more inspirational in terms of the general public."

it's a shame Cable didn't stand in the leadership election, speshly in the light of his comment at PMQ's describing Gordon Brown's "remarkable transformation in the last few weeks from Stalin to Mr Bean, creating chaos out of order rather than order out of chaos”, called by The Economist, "the single best line of Gordon Brown's premiership".

I stand by most of my comments upthread, but certainly not my endorsement of Hughes, once I found out about him standing against Peter Tatchell for the Bermondsey seat under the "your straight candidate" slogan.

That Mr Bean line is rubbish though.

I suppose LibDem supporters are so short on memorable soundbytes they get excited by things like this though.

"Go back to your constituencies and prepare for government" still brings the lulz.

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/privatelives/story/0,,2270160,00.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7359889.stm

Best politician ever.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=534868&in_page_id=1879&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=picbox&ct=5

We hooked up with Andy Kershaw in Hyde Park. I reminded Lembit that he was due in Surrey to make a speech to a group of Lib Dems. I was driving, as usual.

“We're going for one drink - we've got time,” he said as Andy led us towards a pub.

Some people never have just one drink. I sat with an orange juice as the others ordered a second round.

“One more, Lembit, then we have to go,” I said.

“Yeah, yeah.” But then another round. “Lembit, you're the main speaker - you have to be there,” I pleaded.

Then Andy said it. “Look, if the man wants a drink, let him have a drink.”

Dear Liberal Democrats, WHY IS THIS MAN NOT YOUR LEADER?

Because HE IS NOT JESUS!

She's written a whole book about this relationship? Let's hope there more to it than this article which seems to be, he liked a drink or two and was a bit of a shit.

is his chin always like that

I love how she includes Andy Kershaw in there seemingly entirely to add a sinister edge to someone who was clearly a useless partner but not actually particularly nasty or malicious.

She's written a whole book about this relationship? Let's hope there more to it than this article which seems to be, he liked a drink or two and was a bit of a shit.

-- Ned Trifle II, Tuesday, April 22, 2008 10:36 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

no i think it's about other guys too, but he's obviously upset enough about it to want to sue.

keywords: tax bill.

I don't have much time for people presenting the weather who aren't qualified meteorologists.

also, I found the Lloyd book extracts exceedingly tiresome, it was like oh, so she didn't like his clothes, oh so she thought he drank too much...that's like every conversation between a man and a woman ever. Might as well listen to a couple arguing on the bus and save myself the cost of the book.

xp

what, you mean they're not qualified!?! I've just signed up for a three-year meteorology degree in the hope of meeting attractive weathergirls.

you. have. destroyed. my. world.

look mate, I wouldn't trust someone who wasn't CORGI registered to fix my gas boiler, so why should I trust someone who doesn't know their altostratus from their cumulonimbus to tell me if it's going to rain tomorrow?

because they can read a script?

and use those clickstick things

Would you let her drive the train to Cork in the morning?

Because all qualified meteorologists are not televisually "fit"?

Neither is Sian Lloyd, really. Remind me why it needs to be a qualified meteorologist again?

Because all qualified meteorologists are not televisually "fit"?

does that matter?

Isobel Lang, Helen Young, Suzanne Charlton and Elizabeth Saary are all meteorologists who are televisually "fit" or "fit-ish".

Physics or Geography degree. Helen Young was on the same course as me in Bristol, although 2 years above. I met her a couple of times.

look to your laurels, suzy

Well, yes, it does matter since most qualified meteorologists resemble Comic Book Guy and well, no, it shouldn't matter but peaktime TV is about bums on seats.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jun/15/lembitopik

^^ ok, waht. there is something deeply flawed about this party, and opik reckons he'll be president of it!

He owns 15 harmonicas.

"What" a "character"

^^ TEAM SIAN

The LibDems really missed a trick by not putting this dude up for the Mayoral election. He could have given Boris a run for his money.

LOL BORIS VERSUS LOL LEMBIT IN 2012 - MAKE IT HAPPEN

lol lembit isn't a LEGERND tho

Pity Lynn "I Voted For Major In 1992 Because I Thought He Was Fit" Barber hasn't been hit by an asteroid, frankly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/celebritynews/2299204/Lembit-Opik--andlsquodumped-by-his-Cheeky-Girl-fianc%C3%A9e-Gabriela-Irimia'.html

Pour one out

probably been telling her he's prime minister

probably been telling her he's president

probably been telling her he's king boy pato

Lembit Cape-ik, morelike

the Liberal Democrats - the Party of Opportunism, just like all the others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7510909.stm

Knew that would be a DJ Martian post.

Never mind Lembit, the other sister was better looking anyway. Well done Nick Clegg for managing to shoehorn a reference to 'The Winter of Discontent' during PMQs, you fucking Tory cunt.

[it really bugs me that Charles Kennedy does not sound hungry enough]
-- MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, 22 September 2004

THIRSTY ENOUGH THO AMIRITE???

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00333/charles_333763a.jpg

"Who shtole mah boatle?"

It's okay, it's Nick Clegg, no one cares what he has to say. The man has the lowest profile of any of the three main party leaders since at least 1992.

He should get a rent boy to shit on his head, he might get on TV more then

Shitten's Got Talent

from the bbc article Ed linked to:

It also pledges more investment in renewable energy and to axe plans to build more nuclear power stations, scrap the identity card scheme, have 150 fewer MPs and independently audit MPs' expenses.

I am not sure about this business about having fewer MPs. If constituencies are larger then the chances of anyone getting the chance to have a face to face meeting with their MP if they want to raise something with them will decrease and also MPs will have to deal with more correspondence, so the time taken for them to respond to a letter or email will go up. On the one hand, the more constituencies there are and the smaller the number of people per constituency, the more likely it is that people will be able to communicate promptly with their MP, but on the other hand (and presumably what prompted Clegg's comment) the fewer constituencies and the fewer MPs there are in Parliament, the smaller the cost of administering the costs of both running Parliament and conducting elections.

Also, there is the issue of "local-ness" - people feel more engaged with politics if it seems local and thus more relevant to them (eg those places with parish councils). Part of the reason that people don't know or care about politics on a European level is not only the distance and facelesness of the European parliament but also the fact that the Euro constituencies are massive...people are going to care more if the constituency is their town or district than their region which is so often a nebulous vague entity that they don't feel any affinity to.

And it is hardly going to go down well with his fellow MPs - decreasing the number of MPs will mean many of them will be out of a job!

Yeah, this shit could seriously damage the meaningless veneer of democracy.

I myself would rather like a party that had the economic policy of Gordon Brown

I wonder if Tom May still wants that....

I think Tom "may" not (may not)!!!!

Run by me what Brown's economic policy is again?

It involves scratchcards, right?

Clegg does sound awfully impressive tbh. This is a good speech. Not sure about tackling dirty energy by abolishing nuclear power though.

make it happen!

i enjoyed that once he stopped making bad jokes at the start

Thought the Cameron Andrex Puppy gag was genuinely great, especially the intimation that revealed itself when he mentioned "the real function".

god no i cringed at that bit! puerile. "zombie govt" characterisation rang true though it's hardly a great insight

but as i said once he got past that i thought that was a vg speech, full of interesting ideas which will never ever appeal to the public

Clegg does sound awfully impressive tbh

This is a joke? Down to 12% in the opinion polls, when was the last time that happened? Lloyd George?

Lowest poll figures since Robert Maclennan was in power.

Currently outpacing the Labour Party in the race to electoral oblivion

given 4 years of tory rule and i wdn't be surprised if they became official opposition in 2013, IF they play their cards *just* right

either them or the BNP

No, they are about to be annihilated. I actually think the Labour Party and Liberals might hook up and form a new party if the Tories stomp them as badly as the poll suggests they are about to

jesus, Robert Maclennan.

LibDems offer to give Labour back some serious numbers, demand proportional representation legislation as a condition. I can see that happening.

Think a lot of Labour people would bite their arm off but the LibDems would be a bit sniffy.

A lot of them would be more likely to switch to the Tories than team up with Labour.

ehhhh ok i've read the wiki and all but just to be annoying:

the lib dems are basically a left-libertarian party, right?

No, that's Cameron's Conservatives.

you are so funny.

a left party w/o labour's residual socialism, then?

They don't have the slightest clue whether they want to be on the left or right economically so the majority of them fudge the issue and pretend they are neither, or pretend they are whichever one is most likely to get them elected in any given constituency.

It's like BBC Radio who want to please everybody so end up playing Athlete and Nina Simone when in their hearts they know everyone wants either Rihanna or Billy Cotton.

However, the Lib Dems would be way more successful if they used more synths and drum machines (E.g. Simmonds).

Clegg does sound awfully impressive tbh. T

okay what the fuck. even without hearing what he's said, this can't posssibly be true. clegg sounds like an opinionated twat, even ignoring the content of what he says. he's also bad with words.

A lot of them would be more likely to switch to the Tories than team up with Labour.

― Matt DC, Friday, September 19, 2008 5:32 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

er yeah. they're basically angling to carry cameron's water when the inevitable happens in the next 18-24 months.

THAT THING WITH THE DRUDGE REPORT SIRENS

If only he'd settled for being number eight in my stock list of will X pick the following this nation could have been saved.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7754234.stm

LibDems are surely streaking ahead in Britain's Dodgiest Donor now, right?

Dodgy businessmen who donate millions to the LibDems strike me as people who have somewhat missed the point of political donations.

Unless he was an EVIL TORY INFILTRATOR PUT UP TO IT BY CHILD CATCHER CAMERON Julie Bindel writes

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/femail/article-1133035/I-completely-love--heart-broken-Lembit-Opik-tells-romance-Cheeky-girl.html

She was the glamorous one, not me.

She lost interest once she got the passport, huh?

The girls and their stepfather, Ray, dropped me off at my London home. I wanted to see more of her and was disheartened that she couldn’t stay. I don’t mind admitting that I was quite frustrated that she couldn’t. She was very clear about it. She said she had to go back for a meeting the next day.

Feeling a wrench in my heart I slammed the car door hard. It hurt to see her leave.

P.S. I am wanking while I write this.

Ah, Lembit.

What a platinum-plated tool.

What exactly are they for?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8264643.stm

Comic relief during the gruelling nightmare of the next General Election.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5grOekz8sGzmRa7HqZNa-parCI3VA

Delighted to see that the Lib Dems will maintain their noble tradition of putting policy before desperate grasping after any kind of power.

good to know clegg now thinks outcome of first past the post elections equals a legitimate mandate. and that everyone who votes for him wants him to team up with one of the parties they spent valuable time not voting for. and that when he receives 17% of the vote or whatever, he will acknowledge he has less right to be in power than the big two and presumably act accordingly. it's so good it makes me very interested in the outcome of this election and I will definitely vote.

seriously though wtf a hung parliament is a great time to push for electoral reform but instead he manages to back both an unrepresentative system and coalition govts under the pretense that they're the democratic choice. preemptive stfu to anyone who complains about people not voting.

amazing. his whole role in a hung parliament is to play the tories and labour off against each other to accept as much as possible of whatever the lib dem programme is, and he's fucked it up even before voting day.

I hadn't watched him on the TV when I first saw the Press Association story, so I was wondering if what he actually said could be interpreted differently. It sort of can, to the extent that he refuses to actually say "we will unconditionally back the party with the most votes" in the interview.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8372838.stm

But still, if anybody was thinking of tactically voting Lib Dem as a means of preventing a Conservative government then it ought to be clear that Clegg sees no real ideological problem with supporting Tories. Surprise surprise.

lol i just tried to check if the lib dems were still committed to electoral reform, but their policy paper is "page not found".

Clegg is probably wiping his arse with it.

Fucking better be Huhne as next leader. If they elect Clegg, they may as well just take themselves outside and let the vet put a bullet through their skull.

― Dom Passantino, Monday, October 15, 2007 7:10 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark

Right, Kennedy would be good, but if they pick Nick Clegg it's suicide.

― caek, Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:12 AM (2 years ago) Bookmark

may as well call these guys the telesales team coz they are fucking CALLING. IT.

you'll never win anything with cleggs

ahh he said "clegg", like a bird lays, clegg

seem to remember being ever so slightly disappointed huhne didn't win this but can't rly remember anything about him now

Clegg does sound awfully impressive tbh. This is a good speech.

― J4gger Dynamic Pentangle (Just got offed), Wednesday, 17 September 2008 11:35 (1 year ago) Bookmark

lol and then I decided I hated him. but he isn't so bad, just a bit too libertarian for my tastes

u h8 freedom
nick clegg, click neg

People who have decided to vote LibDem at the next election - do you agree with their plans to cut spending on the NHS?

Not sure I'm really believing the cuddly imagine of a party who are to the right of the Tories on this issue.

i'm sure all they're going to do is switch off life-support machines at night. as with the standby light on the tv, this is just common sense.

People who have decided to vote LibDem at the next election - do you agree with their plans to cut spending on the NHS?

― Matt DC, Monday, April 26, 2010 2:55 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

well, i kind of agree that parties should say what they are going to do rather than pretend that "efficiency savings" can do the job. rly h8 all three parties bee tee dubs.

My local Lib Dem MP is an ex-NHS GP himself and the front page of his website says "stop the NHS funding cuts" in several places. Hmm...

(still gets my vote but more of a local/personal vote than a party vote, plus gotta keep the Tories out here - said this before but repeating it to convince myself as much as anyone else)

really disappointed in this:

http://twitter.com/lembitopik

Eastern Europeans flocking over here, taking our Liberal MPs

Not as good as his Daily Sport column: http://www.dailysport.com/Lembit_Opik.asp?CID=41

And we’d give everyone the first ten grand YOU earn TAX FREE, which is good, innit? Still, to raise interest with you lot it wouldn’t hurt if Daily Sport stunna Hannah Owens presented the manifesto launch. That way, at least you’d look at the cover!

This fuckin' guy.

Perhaps the Daily Sport could send them ALL a message by fielding stunna Marta Debrowski in our own political poster with the slogan: “I’ve never faked it in my life!”

Best MP ever?

sb

He’s worried the tax hike will cripple the cider industry in his Taunton constituency… just what we don’t need in a recession! So, let’s get Daily Sport stunna Lucinda to deliver a crate of pear cider to Gordon Brown to help change his mind. Maybe he’d say “Oh what a lovely pear!”

...

Let’s hope for speedy solutions. And let’s also hope Daily Sport girls like stunna Gemma Massey don’t go on strike, too. If they did, I suppose it would be a matter of “one out, all out”!

Guy's a playa, what can you say?

blast him into space

Or could it be that the Labour Party paid Martians to kidnap the Tory top brass until after the General Election? If so, maybe Dangerous Dave can ask the little green men where Daily Sport stunna Janine McKee comes from. After all, it’s perfectly obvious she’s out of this world!

Lembert needs to go to one of those clinics for blokes who can't keep it in their trousers, I suspect.

Not the most versatile of writers is he?

you are in a field

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:30 (4 months ago)

it is dark now

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:30 (4 months ago)

you sleep

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:30 (4 months ago)

it is day

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:30 (4 months ago)

you take out your notepad

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:30 (4 months ago)

on it, you find a picture of your face

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:30 (4 months ago)

the notepad, you realize, is a mirror

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:30 (4 months ago)

you write a note

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:31 (4 months ago)

it is night

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:31 (4 months ago)

you are sleepy

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:31 (4 months ago)

you look at the notepad

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:31 (4 months ago)

you fall into the notepad

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:31 (4 months ago)

into the notepad

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:31 (4 months ago)

in front you, you see your wife

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:32 (4 months ago)

your child is in your arms

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:32 (4 months ago)

your face is covered with blood

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:33 (4 months ago)

you write on your notepad

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:33 (4 months ago)

you are a journalist

― super sexy psycho fantasy world (uh oh I'm having a fantasy), Thursday, 10 December 2009 23:33 (4 months ago)

Not the most versatile of writers is he?

The man knows what he likes.

I think we should go one step further and let British MPs bring their girlfriends and pets into parliament. That way David Blunkett’s dog – who does come in - would have some company. And when the debate gets really dull, the Daily Sport girls will provide a refreshing incentive to stick around.

And once again, the Daily Sport has led the way by providing employment to a whole army of potential applicants like super stunna Gemma Massey. The economy might look bleak, but the she never will.

http://i.thisislondon.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/lembit-new-girl-415x275.jpg

Surely Clegg is going to bust out these big guns for the final week of the campaign.

Fucking better be Huhne as next leader. If they elect Clegg, they may as well just take themselves outside and let the vet put a bullet through their skull.

― Dom Passantino, Monday, October 15, 2007 7:10 PM (2 years ago) Bookmark

Right, Kennedy would be good, but if they pick Nick Clegg it's suicide.

― caek, Wednesday, October 17, 2007 10:12 AM (2 years ago) Bookmark

may as well call these guys the telesales team coz they are fucking CALLING. IT.

― history mayne, Monday, April 26, 2010 2:31 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

dude, read my post again.

He's fallen for the Clegg bounce, caek

this is what happens when nrq posts after lunch instead of having a nap and he's all grumpy.

Grumpier you mean?

Various twats out themselves as Libby Wibby Dems

... Susie Orbach... Yasmin Alibhai Brown... Jeanette Winterson

... how to lose votes and not influence people

Monbiot you plank

^^^^^^lol at this list of names

Daily Sport Stunna Richard Reeves, Daily Sport Stunna John Kampfner, Daily Sport Stunna Professor Noreena Hertz, Daily Sport Stunna Susie Orbach, Daily Sport Stunna Shazia Mirza, Daily Sport Stunna Camilla Toulmin, Daily Sport Stunna Brian Eno, Daily Sport Stunna John le Carré, Daily Sport Stunna Henry Porter, Daily Sport Stunna Alex Layton, Daily Sport Stunna Gordon Roddick, Daily Sport Stunna Yasmin Alibhai Brown, Daily Sport Stunna Philip Pullman, Daily Sport Stunna David Aukin, Daily Sport Stunna Nick Harkaway, Daily Sport Stunna Lisa Appignanesi, Daily Sport Stunna Francis Wheen, Daily Sport Stunna Alan Ryan, Daily Sport Stunna Raymond Tallis, Daily Sport Stunna Julian Baggini, Daily Sport Stunna Jeanette Winterson, Daily Sport Stunna Rodric Braithwaite, Daily Sport Stunna Richard Dawkins, Daily Sport Stunna George Monbiot, Daily Sport Stunna Ken Macdonald, Daily Sport Stunna Philippe Sands, Daily Sport Stunna Misha Glenny, Daily Sport Stunna Anthony Barnett, Daily Sport Stunna Richard Sennett, Daily Sport Stunna David Marquand

:)

I backed Campbell as the best of a wholly unsatisfactory bunch. I'm hoping he can steady the ship for a few years until Nick Clegg is ready.

― Mike W (caek), Thursday, March 2, 2006 2:14 PM (4 years ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

^^^ nostradamus

While we're biting ourselves then

dammit I was gonna make a username choice from that lot, prob richard dawkins

or brian eno

Maybe if the Pope met Daily Sport Stunna Richard Dawkins he'd say 'I'll have an Urbi at those Orbis'.

And with Daily Sport Stunna Brian Eno on hand to provide the music, it'll be a case of 'Music for Airphwoooooarts'

lolol

I don't know about global warming, but one look at Daily Sport Stunna George Monbiot and I bet you'd want to warm his globes any time.

XDDDDDD

dude, read my post again.

― caek, Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:02 PM (30 minutes ago) Bookmark

isdgi

I haven't got a fucking clue who Daily Star Stunna Professor Noreena Hertz is, but let's face it, we all wanna see Moreena of her!

John le Carré <------ what?

xposts

noodle KILLING IT

Daily Sport Stunna Brian Eno hopes to get Chris Martin Coldplay on board for the campaign. Stunna Brian, 57, produced Coldplay's last album and says he can't wait to twiddle with their knobs again!

With John le Carré, people are always smiley. Simply put: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier... Stunna

isdgi

― one of your top-tier posters! (history mayne), Thursday, April 29, 2010 1:34 PM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

i was zinging dom for saying choosing clegg would be suicide, when there was a far more suicidal candidate who was talking about running.

o rite

pour one out

http://thewaenbrewery.co.uk/images/cimg3235-1hocs.jpg

^^^this dude got what was righteously coming

place your lols here

also RIP Big Men etc

^^^this dude got what was righteously coming

RONG

maybe he should have gone to The Sun and told 'em that he'd be Minister for Page 3

http://img249.imageshack.us/img249/940/gpb.jpg

getting serious voter's remorse although i guess i did help knock the tories down a spot in the order (to 3rd), probably one of <10 examples of this nationwide

clegmmanic remorse (dsm v)

autechre songtitles 4u

how cld u be fooled by that cunt

hope he fkn dies

also hilarious megalols at nrq's display name which i have only just noticed

I want to join the Euro now! Changing my money when I go abroad is a pain in the arse! Who cares whether the money I spend has the queen's head on it or not! I don't want referenda. I want the same money as my mates in Spain, Germany and France and I want it now!

maybe i was just a ~little~ harsh hoping clegg suffers a fucking massive corononary yesterday, i mean he's not actually going to enter a formal coalition w/ cameron now rite? seems too weakwilled to do anything save for abstaining on a queen's speech which wd probably be his least controversial option, and these negotations are so he can say he at least tried

but i don't rly know anything about the ppl around him and what they will advise

lib dems surely not going to enter coalition with tories, but going to enter into an agreement to back a minority conservative gov. so that when the thing falls apart before the end of the year they can play up the fact that they tried to act in the national interest while avoiding being associated by the sweeping cuts that will have taken place.

that's what they ought to do if they don't see a lab/snp etc coalition working, but george osborne trying to lure david laws (one of their key negotiators) three years ago is certainly nagl

The Conservatives say they have been targeting Lib Dem and Labour MPs in an effort to get them to defect.

Shadow chancellor George Osborne said he offered Lib Dem frontbencher David Laws, seen as being on the right of his party, a seat in the shadow cabinet.

fucking cunts

Mebbe the lib dems wouldn't remodel the UK on the Swiss model, but they would come closer to it than any of the other parties!

― MarkH (MarkH), Wednesday, September 22, 2004 11:56 PM (5 years ago) Bookmark

Swiss model = country run by crypto-Nazis

more liek liberal demoPRATs

http://twitter.com/ilmigliorfabbro/status/13839160913

I can do without those jumping ship to Labour, personally. Enjoy your spinning, illiberal, complicit in torture, Daily Mail placating party.

Thanks, we will! More than anyone's gonna enjoy yours over the next 5 years, anyway.

Sigh.

(I dunno who that dude is, don't think he's anyone important)

more like RISIBLE POWERGRABS

Sorry that came into my head on the bus when I was half asleep.

Just like this coalition came to Nick Clegg amirite?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

(a passing spacecadet), who is that guy whose twitters you linked to?

Come out, come out, wherever you are...

ayo!

Thanks, we will!

you will?

HM, I don't know who he is. He talks about "we" and "us" and how things were going in private talks so I thought he might actually be somebody, but googling has turned up nothing except his own blog info so I guess he is just a rank+file paid-up member? He is pally on twitter w/Evan Harris, whose twitter I was spying on.

(His blog made me choke briefly at various "vote Labour, get Cameron" ironies, but oh well.)

Hi, rank and file paid up Lib Dem member here! How do?

not great. your party has just committed us to five years of neo-thatcherism!

on the other hand, it'll all fall apart over europe/some other major policy area on which the tories not so privately laugh at you, and your vote will be shredded next time!

I thought clicking the SB would make me feel better but I just felt empty tbh

they'd need 55 anyway

We had no other choice, and this way the Tory idiocy will at least be tempered with *some* common sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw2ECzwDyMc

I thought clicking the SB again would make me feel better but I just felt empty tbh.

Pretty sure T.S. Eliot wd be happy with our new gov

shantih shantih shantih

More like "This is the way the world ends" amirite?

i would be glad of another death--CAMERONS DEATH AM I RIGHT

(NOT ACTUALLY WISHING FOR THAT)

'The vote is open; the manifesto hangs on the wall,
Put your principles at the door, sleep, prepare for government.’

The last twist of the knife.

*applause*

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. We would have been slaughtered for allowing a Tory govt to rule unfettered; slaughtered for propping up a discredited Labour; slaughtered for brokering a confidence and supply deal with the Tories which did nothing to moderate their fiscal severity. We'll now be slaughtered for this but at least we'll get some policies through. No more ID cards, no more Heathrow third runway. Good start.

No more ID cards, no more Heathrow third runway.

Both Tory Policies anyway

But not Labour ones, and they refused to budge on it. Plus no expansion of Gatwick and Stansted either, which wasn't Tory policy.

Both Tory Policies anyway

― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Wednesday, May 12, 2010 9:08 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

no ID cards is a good thing

im not that fussed about airport expansion

Have a look at the full agreement if you think having civil liberties is a good thing.

beginning with... the imposition of a five-year fixed-term parliament!

Don't forget the great gerrymandering exercise with no guarantee of a change in voting system

Looking forward to being unemployed so I can devote more time to rocking the Yes vote.

hey don't sweat it. im sure david laws will temper george osborne's best instincts.

oh hang on

Laws graduated with a double first from King's College, Cambridge, in economics in 1987, and went into investment banking, becoming a Vice President at JP Morgan from 1987 to 1992 and then Managing Director, being the Head of US Dollar and Sterling Treasuries at Barclays de Zoete Wedd.

yeah im sure it'll be fine

The imposition of a fixed-term parliament as opposed to the Prime Minister calling an election whenever he feels a bit frisky? I can cope with that sort of imposition, personally.

It's not so much the fixed term parliament as the 55% no confidence vote needed to boot it out.

i just have a problem with the imposition, and the length (four years wouldn't be as bad). trying to remember elections called when the PM was "frisky". pretty sure that's not actually happened. the flexibility seems consistent to me with the constitution. and yeah it goes without saying that the 55% rule is completely cynical.

arguably a fixed-term gov't could weather a storm of unpopularity resulting from putting in place necessary cuts or changes. but the american example is not encouraging on this score.

You can just endure a period of unpopularity until a convenient war comes along.

arguably a fixed-term gov't could weather a storm of unpopularity resulting from putting in place necessary cuts or changes.

this is undemocratic. there's more than one way to balance a budget. the option we're getting is the one that barely affects the class that benefits the most from tory rule.

55% not exactly inconceivable in the context of a discredited government. We could easily have got 55% support for a no-confidence vote in the last days of Labour, for instance. But I'm not thrilled with it either.

The principle of fixed-term parliaments is surely one worth pursuing though? It will save us the fevered speculation of autumn 2007, for instance.

Really? Is that the problem this is supposed to fix?

It will save us the fevered speculation of autumn 2007, for instance.

what a compelling reason!

Yes - the problem of Prime Ministers dithering till a convenient moment when the polls look good, rather than concentrating on, y'know, governing the country.

There are historical reasons why we don't have fixed-term parliaments, and as hm said upthread they are sound reasons. If you shook up the whole organisation of our system then things might be different. How odd that this shd be the one bit of parliamentary reform the coalition cd agree on.

Don't think fevered speculation is particularly the fault of a government, or much of a problem tbh

if you could have got 55 per cent support for no confidence under labour they would have been out before now. they only had to get 50 per cent plus one mp and it never happened. get real.

im sure this parliament will be light on fevered speculation

again, from an american fixed-term perspective, the "fevered speculation of autumn 2007", whatever that was, has to be prefereable to the grind of bush 2006-08

i'd much rather the system over here was more parliamentary for a lot of reasons tho

fixed terms is a trade-off, not a solution. and i'm not sure what problem it's intended to solve.

lol xps

And of course it's an established fact that US Presidents do no party political grandstanding whatsoever except for the month before an election.

No *way* you got 55% at any point in the last term for a no confidence vote

It's not the one bit of parliamentary reform the coalition agreed on. Read the deal if you want more.

I've been reading it. Something about the Tories agreeing to campaign v. hard against PR plus stuffing the House of Lords with placemen?

Yeah, that. Plus all the Wright Committee proposals, register of lobbyists, recall law.

welp, the recall law should come in handy, yes

our guy, julian huppert, who seems very naive, will take a drubbing im pretty sure

Recall law is only for those found 'guilty of wrong-doing', right? Not just because a bunch of people are grumpy?

they don't seem to have defined it, which is handy, but i would call it wrongdoing to make possible policies your voters did not want

your definition will not be theirs, i guarantee. it'll all depend on the parliamentary standards process first, which is heavily manipulated by mps.

oh i don't doubt it, just trying to cheer myself up w. prospect of either one of the coalition parties taking hits

what goole said

Who do all you people support now then?

Well, not 'now', but in general.

anyone whose last name is a euphemism for genitalia

support violent, bloody revolutionary justice tbh

anyone whose last name is a euphemism for genitalia

good news for Alexander Bearded-Clam

jeffrey penis-vagina-wiener-balls

jr

Good news for Vic Flange MP

there was a state senator from MN named david minge. which is only funny in the uk.

Will also support Piers Human-Centipede if he gets a cabinet post

it's possible to feel all three parties are bad, and elsewhere on this board you'll find reams of anti-labour commentary, and even some advocacy of the pre-yesterday lib dems, on civil liberties (from me ne way)

though less so since the awful nick clegg came in

im hoping the labour party reforms itself. i don't expect a miracle, but there's no way in hell i'd vote lib dem (again) or tory (ever).

my ex-MP lynne featherstone doesn't seem too keen on the present arrangement. wonder how long the likes of her will stick it out.

lynne featherstone-testicle

I voted for Ming, which is almost minge. (I'm hard-left, but not even any lol-trots here, so between tories and ld I went LD. Yay.)

No Green candidate in NE Fife, dowd?

Nope. Just tory, lab, ld, snp and ukip. :(

Making me fold the ballot form felt like they were taking the piss. Campbell always gets ~50% here anyway.

I'm intrigued by this board actually. Got here through sitemeter, obviously. What is the context here? Or is it just a free-for-all that you all arrived at by chance?

this is kinda useless but:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Love_Music

No, that's very useful. Feel like a total, erm, 'n00b' now though.

http://www.ilxor.com/faq.html (more info, maybe?)

You probably want to be here too, then
DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived Cleggeron era
(You can find newly updated threads on the board you're reading with the "ILE Answers" link, or newly updated threads across the site at Site New Answers)

Now feel like even more of a n00b, curses CURSES

there have been much, much funnier worse entries

shhhhhh don't spoil the surprise for the guy

ahaha wow, random lib dem googler!

gotta say i probably agree that the LDs had no real option but to do this, once it became clear that the arithmetic wouldn't allow for any sort of fantasy rainbow coalition. so they could either refuse a tory deal, give up even the pretense of power now, and hope that somehow they'd hit the tiny arithmetic sweet spot in the next election (ie more lib/lab seats, but with labour still needing the lib dems for an overall majority). or do this deal and try to assuage the backlash by their actions in govt (in the sense of restraining the tories, in getting to implement some of their own policies and generally in not screwing up).

i can't figure out why they agreed to this 55% thing though.

http://hereticalmusings.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/the-55-rule-a-storm-in-a-teacup/

Seriously confused about this now. Would like some clarification on it.

LOLLLL when he was running for national office, I picked up some MINGE FOR CONGRESS leaflets at the State Fair specifically to distribute to Scottish friends.

xpost

ya boy seems to think that "The overthrow of a Government does not, however, necessitate fresh elections."

get tae fuck as we say north of the river, yes it does

If another party or group of parties sitting in Parliament is able to command enough support in the Commons (for instance, if Labour did fantastically well in a string of by-elections), then the Lib-Con coalition could fall and power pass to a new coalition without the need to hold a general election.

yeah, no, thx, i think im chill just having another general election rather than more shabby behind-closed-doors dealmaking

Well, in this context it would probably lead to a Tory minority government.

What it does is to move power to dissolve Parliament from the Prime Minister to Parliament itself, albeit with a high threshold. But a high threshold is needed to ensure that a fixed term really is a fixed term. The only problem is when a party has a large majority and so could conceivably trigger an election, but at least it would then require the party to agree, which is not straightforward given several MPs always have tenuous majorities.

Well, in this context it would probably lead to a Tory minority government
...which couldn't pass any laws.

The only problem is when a party has a large majority and so could conceivably trigger an election, but at least it would then require the party to agree, which is not straightforward given several MPs always have tenuous majorities.

Not that large a majority, to be honest. 55% is only 357 seats, which was bettered in 1983, 1987, 2001 and just one short in 2005. So more often than not it would do nothing to stop a majority government from calling an election whenever it wanted to.

But a high threshold is needed to ensure that a fixed term really is a fixed term.

why do we need fixed terms again? why do we need them so much that a simple majority isn't good enough?

perhaps in a working majority will have to mean 55% of the seats, to ensure that a majority really is a majority

I can't help but feel if this was a thing that the Tories or LDs felt properly strongly about then they'd try to implement it in a way that allayed any of the suspicions that they've stirred up right now. This way doesn't look like good faith.

i can't figure out why they agreed to this 55% thing though.

Because if the libdems decided to fuck off and vote against the government, then the opposition could only muster 53% of the house. I guess setting it at 54% would have appeared a tad too cynical.

55% shows the Tories and LibDems really don't trust each other very much.

Have to add a couple of percent to protect themselves from batshit Tory mavericks trying to shoot them in the back.

But then a government with a large majority is unlikely to call an early election anyway.

The LDs have been calling for fixed term parliaments for ages. See here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmhansrd/cm080516/debtext/80516-0009.htm#08051643000004

And here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/pabills/200607/fixed_term_parliaments.htm

David Howarth's bill was much more cut and dried than the current proposals though.

The fixed term thing is a different argument, agreed. Don't think it's a valid reform without wholesale change to the electoral system, but we cd argue the toss about that. It's the 55 percent rule that seems so cynical. The LDs are arguably undermining their own case by agreeing to it.

howarth's bill recommends four years, which is more reasonable, though i still think it's a pointless exercise

only total lamers hand on for five years

hang on

Seems to me it would have been better if the threshold had been even higher e.g. 60%, so that LDs and Tories together couldn't dissolve Parliament either.

why?!

they've pulled this out of thin air to prop up a coalition most LD voters did not want. you live in cambridge: is it *really* you're impression that lib-dems here are in favour of osbornomics? most of them a soft lefties who didn't like new labour's wars/civil liberties record/tuition fees. most tories support higher tuition fees! young julian is toast imo, and im likely to help in his defenestration.

But an undissolvable Parliament is a bad idea for all the reasons listed above. This is The Defiant Ones, not stability.

you're impression

^^^ indictment of a private-school-and-oxbridge education right there

I'm not denying it may well harm the LD vote. Every other course would have harmed it too, and I don't think anyone can predict whether this is definitely the right course until we see the results of it.

Cambridge voters tend to care as much about civil liberties and green issues as about the economy, and from that point of view I think the Lib Dems may well have a good song to sing in five years' time, along with the £10,000 income tax allowance.

Cambridge voters tend to care as much about civil liberties and green issues as about the economy

yes... when they're in work. im implementing a "wait-and-see" on these two issues. the tories outnumber the liberal democrats and, you'll find, aren't mad keen on green issues. many of them don't actually believe in man-made climate change. the lib dems seem quite confused about issues of liberty and democracy at the moment. fixed-term parliaments and coalitions no voter wanted are not very democratic.

you won't get the £10,000 income allowance. they've promised to "move towards" it, which is tory for dream on, hippy.

Thank you Lib Dem thread, I have now read the ILXor FAQ.

Who do all you people support now then?

Certainly not you lot, you Tory cunts

You can't possibly say 'no voter wanted' a coalition. It's obviously impossible to judge with any certainty what each voter meant by their vote (part of the problem of FPTP...) but I personally know quite a few voters who voted tactically to achieve a hung parliament with a view to a coalition.

I'm quite aware of the Tories' record on green issues. I'd rather have Chris Huhne at DECC than a Tory for precisely that reason.

@joe - we're expecting a substantial rise in the allowance (£1000 is rumoured at the moment) in this first emergency budget, and then subsequent rises in each successive budget. I'll wait and see if the rhetoric matches the reality.

xpost

Authentic voice of the Left :D

Green issues: Tories will block lots of proposals for windfarms in rural locations; a new generation of nuclear power stations will lurch ever closer; the Severn barage will be a stitch-up between the Tories and big business and will lead to large-scale damage of the local environment; Tories will insist that they can reduce carbon emissions through market forces instead of implementing proper targets

Anyway this thread will be locked in a couple of years once Clegg (and Laws and Alexander et al) do the decent thing and join the Modern Conservative Party, winding up the Liberal Democrats for good

you won't get the £10,000 income allowance. they've promised to "move towards" it

This seems to have been conveniently overlooked.

Are the Tories still going ahead with referenda for local planning issues? If so, green issues (and the high speed rail link) are fucked…

You can't possibly say 'no voter wanted' a coalition. It's obviously impossible to judge with any certainty what each voter meant by their vote (part of the problem of FPTP...) but I personally know quite a few voters who voted tactically to achieve a hung parliament with a view to a coalition.

you know people who wanted a Lib-Con coalition? really? i... do not. ne ways, because coalitions are by nature shady, the voters should be given even more of a chance to boot them out than usual, based on what they enact.

If so, green issues (and the high speed rail link) are fucked…

... Tory Nimby and Liberal Namby-Pamby coalition in full effect

you know people who wanted a Lib-Con coalition?

i.e., you know Nick Clegg?

If coalition was desired in the electorate, they were for a Lab-Lib one, as the stated motivation of everyone I know was 'keeping the Tories out of power' and not giving Cameron any little orange helpers.

yup

Well, you lot must move in very tribal circles. I know quite a lot of people who support the idea of consensus politics, whether Lib/Lab or Lib/Con, rather than single-party government.

No, you probably move in Liberal Democrat circles in the South East of England

As in Party circles

consensus politics

oxymoron right there imo

i don't know ne 1 in cambridge who wants lib-con, srsly man

consensus politics, Lib/Con

Well now we know, and we're not about to forget it, don't you worry about that

it's not like clegg didn't say (i.e. warn) before the election which coalition he was going to try to form first.

that guy misspeaks so much who knows what he thinks

Yeah, I only speak to Lib Dems. Everyone else is off-limits.

Consensus politics is what most developed countries have; why should we continue with the old binary choices?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7107300.ece

Current situation hardly a shock then

why should we continue with the old binary choices?

It is binary to some extent, in that you have the Tory Party, and you have Anyone Else, but there is quite a lot of choice in the latter

Yeah, but Brown said he would go after a new leader was chosen, so that's a red herring.xp

consensus politics lib/con

can't tell if I woke up on the wrong or right side of the looking glass

it's not like clegg didn't say (i.e. warn) before the election which coalition he was going to try to form first.

True but I can honestly say I didn't expect to see Simon Hughes (to name but one who is now dead to me) kissing Tory arse on all channels

Consensus politics is what most developed countries have; why should we continue with the old binary choices?

― ilmigliorfabbro, Thursday, May 13, 2010 10:45 AM (2 minutes ago) Bookmark

idk which countries you mean, or why britain, whose flexible system has held up pretty well in the past, needs to bring in random lib-con favouring arrangements in order to bring us "in line" with them. i don't really envy (say) italy's political system. we just have a markedly different political history from the rest of europe, basically a more liberal one, which is why the LDs' fondness for europe perplexes me. anyway the choice is even more binary now.

clegg could have done confidence & supply. he didn't have to guarantee a five-year term.

anyway the choice is even more binary now

OTM

Talking about driving people into Labour's camp!

Is it true that a Lib Dem kid got sonned in an ILX beef?

It's not tribal to run shy of Tories, it's a normal product of life in this country over the past 20 years for anyone who is not conventionally white and middle-class (and a significant amount of those of us who are). Mainly it's annoying because if Labour had returned a result of c. 305 MPs, you can be reasonably sure the BAYING that would issue from certain media quarters would never have allowed for a coalition and the Tories would have been on record about the BAD IDEA-ness of the whole thing (and you could guess how they might have felt about 55% and fixed terms). I'm sure Lib Dems would never have been as willing to make a pact with Labour, who'd be in minority government the way most of us thought was appropriate for the Tories to be right now.

People are angry enough to ensure that every by-election between here and whenever will be won by Labour.

why have any form of local taxation at all? Fact: 75% of local authority taxation comes stright from central government. Why have any local authority tax raising power at all? Cut admin costs by actually abolishing local taxation completely and allocate the whole lot from central government through income tax.

(Mark H 5 years ago)

on a complete tangent, did we ever have the debate as to why central funding for local govt is a shitty shitty thing.

Sorry, this is buried about a mile upthread but:

Suggest Ban Permalink

But then a government with a large majority is unlikely to call an early election anyway.

― ilmigliorfabbro, Thursday, May 13, 2010 8:48 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark

Doesn't the experience of the last, I dunno, 50 years of politics say otherwise?

i wouldn't say we've had any really early elections. i suppose if you count 1966, but otherwise no.

Def have in the sense that they haven't gone the full five years tho

Yeah, that's an interesting point... (xpost I don't know where to)

There is one seat left where they haven't voted.

THere's a lot of chortling about the LibDems and Conservatives running separate candidates, and what they are going to do about it / how they are going to campaign against each other, etc.

Of course, it'll be the same as when a party needs a new leader: Lots of "I'm the man for the job" with not so much of the "He's a rubbish man for the job"..

Of course, as you say, it'll be a vote For or Against the 'new coalition govt".

apart from 1966 and 1974 (a special case), they've all been four years or longer

they don't have to go "the full five years": five years is the maximum term, not s.thing to shoot for

Snap elections are talked about all the time, they hardly ever happen

^^^part of Westminster emotional blackmail tool-kit^^^

Oh hi IMF. Fit of pique yesterday. Calmer this morning. Thanks for dropping by and being reasonable in the face of my name-calling.

@joe - we're expecting a substantial rise in the allowance (£1000 is rumoured at the moment) in this first emergency budget, and then subsequent rises in each successive budget. I'll wait and see if the rhetoric matches the reality.

A grand is pretty good. By my hazy recollections it was about 3k when I started work a decade ago and is now 6.5k, so another 3.5k in a 5-year term = twice as fast as under Labour - not quite as revolutionary as the 10k thing first sounded, but I was concerned that increases in tax-free allowance and minimum wage would be conveniently forgotten under the Tories, so twice as fast is very nice if it happens

as are many of the other things LDs have got the Tories agreeing to "look at" - I just fear for how many of them will be buried and how many twisted into forms which will only suit the Tories

and the suddenness of new rules for parliamentary terms is a slightly unnerving precedent, to me - fixed terms may appear in the LD manifesto, but what LD or Con voter expected them to be one of first acts of a new government, with no pre-election debate on their existence, never mind the length?

No-one said *really* early, though, I was really making the point that governments with large majorities (at least ones which are not teetering on the brink of an electoral hammering) absolutely call elections early, generally after about 4 years.

ja props to noted tory ilxor ilmigliofabbro for sticking around

Fairly early, yes. Four years is long enough for any government, if you ask me. (xp)

There is one seat left where they haven't voted.

I would love something hilarious to happen in Thirsk and Malton, but given the Con majority there in 05, so not going to happen. Tories may be grumbling about Dave and about coalition, but they're not going to switch side en masse yet; even if all the Lib Dem voters went Labour (and I expect the vote will be down, maybe a few thousand out of 18k), they still wouldn't unseat the Tories.

Doubt there are many Centre Left (hollow laugh) voters in Thirsk & Malton!

The excitement, if any, in Thirsk & Malton will be about what happens to the LD vote. If it drops off considerably then it really doesn't matter where it goes to.

I was really making the point that governments with large majorities (at least ones which are not teetering on the brink of an electoral hammering) absolutely call elections early, generally after about 4 years.

― Tim, Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:08 AM (7 minutes ago) Bookmark

it's only "early" if you think of five years as normal. it isn't: four years is pretty much the norm.

Yeah I'm aware it's a proper racecourse 'n' toffs constituency but a) wonder what the electoral turnout was in '05 and b) are there 15k Lab voters there in theory, not including tacticians?

Yeah but this fixed term is making five years the norm. So in that sense most majority govts *do* call "early" elections (and still could under 55 nonsense)

Best tactical vote wd be for everyone to vote Tory. Hilarity wd ensue.

Fixed terms is a great solution to a problem that wasn't there.

Well, put it this way: They measured the swing to the conservatives in every safe Labour seat.

Often it was as high as 10%.

You know they will make an issue of it if the Labour vote increases at all.

yeah, i think postal voting there opened at the same time as everywhere else, i.e. ~1 month ago.

I'm hoping that there will a big LD to Labour swing and a Disgruntled tory to UKIP swing. I'm sure the conservatives will win but hopefully MPs in marginals will start to feel uneasy.

When are we going to get the power of recall? When can disgruntled LD voters start sacking their turncoats?

yeah, i think postal voting there opened at the same time as everywhere else, i.e. ~1 month ago.

― caek, Thursday, 13 May 2010 05:23 (2 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Has to be voided, new ballot papers sent out.

Predict massive vote for Tories

I agree, btw, that it should be 4 years, not 5. 5 is too long.

People jumping ship from Lib Dems to Labour frankly says more about those people than about the political situation we are now in. I would hope to see most Lib Dems who leave the party now voting Green, as that would be far more consistent with social liberal principles (albeit the Greens are a statist authoritarian party masquerading as left liberals).

Still not sure why anyone, in Thirsk & Malton or anywhere else, would have any reason to vote Liberal Democrat

^it's the tory vote you can tell your neighbours about

a Disgruntled tory to UKIP swing

^ this, but kind of sad that there wasn't a huge sympathy vote for Farage in the GE, what does a guy have to do to get some hugs?

history mayne on Conf & Supply, we would get slaughtered just as much for allowing the Tories to govern unfettered, esp. without any concessions on their economic plans

I think a lot of you are overestimating the leftieness of the LD base. Their main interests are in those cranky LD banner policies, some of which they look like getting.

And the tactical labour vote that you might expect to desert them didn't turn up in the first place. (You can overestimate it if you get your impression of how people are voting from Facebook status updates and twitter.)

I think they will lose some support because they made this deal, but not that much. They may lose a lot more depending on how the deal pans out/the circumstances in which it collapses, but the existence of the deal itself is a problem of principle for a pretty small fraction of LD voters.

history mayne on Conf & Supply, we would get slaughtered just as much for allowing the Tories to govern unfettered, esp. without any concessions on their economic plans

You'd get slaughtered for sure, but now you're Untouchable

Whirlwind Bromance - people will still vote Lib Dem because we are not the Tories and because we have done all we can to ensure that more liberal policies will be enacted under this govt than under 13 years of Labour. We'll obviously lose a lot of support, but as I said a long time ago, we'd have done so whatever path we chose.

trans: they were all closet Tories anyway

xxpost

So when is this wonderful not-bi-election?

People jumping ship from Lib Dems to Labour frankly says more about those people than about the political situation we are now in.

says the dude stanning for cleggeron!

it says those people probably don't love our new tory government. it doesn't mean they think labour is perfect.

history mayne on Conf & Supply, we would get slaughtered just as much for allowing the Tories to govern unfettered, esp. without any concessions on their economic plans

― ilmigliorfabbro, Thursday, May 13, 2010 11:30 AM (35 seconds ago) Bookmark

they wouldn't be governing unfettered: they'd have a hard time getting anything done w/o a majority and would have to call a second election. now we have them for five years (it says 'ere).

UKIP always seem to do well when it won't effect the Tories chance of getting into power, got to fancy them for a big rise in the vote from those who've just seen the Tory manifesto gutted to allow for and agreement with some pinko, treehugging, foreigner luvving europhiles.

but the existence of the deal itself is a problem of principle for a pretty small fraction of LD vote

Depends where you live, I would suggest.

David Cameron, asked about the forthcoming election in the rural north Yorkshire seat at his historic joint press conference with Nick Clegg, replied: “"We are not merging our two parties so we'd expect our parties to put up candidates and to campaign in that intensely reasonable way in which we always do."
The new Prime Minister joked: “Perhaps we’ll share a car to save on petrol.”
His deputy added: “And get out on opposite sides.”

ladies & gentlemen: your new Eric & Ernie

I think a lot of you are overestimating the leftieness of the LD base. Their main interests are in those cranky LD banner policies, some of which they look like getting.

And the tactical labour vote that you might expect to desert them didn't turn up in the first place. (You can overestimate it if you get your impression of how people are voting from Facebook status updates and twitter.)

lol i probably do this. my experience of LD voters is limited, true indeed. i think i foresaw a lib-lab pact in which the more egregious lib dem crank ideas got sanded off. oh well!

people will still vote Lib Dem because we are not the Tories

No, you are the Little Tories

More like Bert & Ernie xxp

<3 everyone taking out their lib-dem betrayal angst at likeable new poster?

The consistent 'gay couple at number ten' innuendo from all the papers is really fun today! 'Joined at the lip'!

A second election would have given the Tories a probable majority in which they would have governed unfettered, and seen the squeeze on the third party continue. You would then have had the Tories in power solo for four/five years.

We really didn't have much of a choice.

i don't think he's a saint or any of that -- i *do* think he's to the left of ed balls on the economy -- but i would hope to see vince cable chuck in the towel pretty quick. he doesn't seem mad keen on working with little lord fauntleroy.

<3 everyone taking out their lib-dem betrayal angst at likeable new poster?

haha yeah we are being rough

<3 everyone taking out their lib-dem betrayal angst at likeable new poster?

You mean the likeable new poster who supports a Tory government? Sorry man, nothing personal.

UKIP always seem to do well when it won't effect the Tories chance of getting into power, got to fancy them for a big rise in the vote from those who've just seen the Tory manifesto gutted to allow for and agreement with some pinko, treehugging, foreigner luvving europhiles.

― American Fear of Pranksterism (Ed), Thursday, 13 May 2010 10:33 (4 minutes ago) Bookmark

UKIP don't stand to get a member of parliament. Most fringe parties (Greens and Respect successfully, BNP less so) focus all of their resources on the two or three constituencies they think they have a shot of winning at. UKIP just throw money anywhere to act as a spoiler to Tory election chances.

Tom, i think we get it.

ilmigliorfabbro - a rough guide to the board demographics, no-one was overly opposed to Lib Dems
a week ago.

ILX Exit Poll (UK General Election 2010) - new version!

We really didn't have much of a choice.

You keep saying that, are you sure you're still not trying to convince yourself?

Bit unfair to leave the nationalists/unionists off on the election where they might actually determine major policy decisions

― Greatest contributor: (history mayne), Thursday, May 6, 2010 9:35 AM (1 week ago) Bookmark

can i just say CALLED IT

Staring blankly into the mirror, shaving distractedly, unaware that blood is spurting from various wounds, intoning over and over again, "We really didn't have much of a choice... We really didn't have much of a choice... We really didn't have much of a choice"