Coalition how long will it last?

DonDaddyD

It amounts to a Vegetarian working in a Steak House. I don't get it. Fundamentally they should be polar opposites.

If the Lib Dems were not in Government with the Tories then when Cameron said "multiculturalism doesn't work" - thereby displaying to the World the tip of how far his right wing leanings go - it wouldn't be unexpected to see Lib Dems outraged with cries of "Racism", "Class divide" and "Prejudice" (correctly or incorrectly) hurled at Cameron with the same ferocity that they hug trees with.

I mean multiculture, social mobility, equality, everyone paying into a pot so society as a whole can benefit (at the expense of personal wealth) whether you agree with these or not are the root of Lib Dem ethos.

All of which has been brushed aside as they freely support: benefit cuts, housing benefit cuts, child benefit cuts, University tuition fee reforms and what looked like the dismantling of the NHS. Again if the Lib Dems were not in power you'd expect them to opposed and protesting against all these policies. If they were solely in power you wouldn't expect them to take a single one of these actions.

It doesn't really matter how right or wrong the decisions taken are, fundamentally they are not liberal minded decisions they are Conservative ones and you'd expect opposition from the Liberal left.

And so I'm left asking where the hell are the Liberal Democrates?

The last great hope for the Lib Dems to achieve from the Coalition is winning the voting reform proposal (AV as oppose to First past the post) which they'll probably lose with a number of seats in the local election.

The resolve of the more ardent Liberals cannot last much longer. After all the longer the Lib Dems stay in the Coalition the more they'll lose their identity and their voters. I mean when Labour is looking more Liberal in it's political stance compared to the Liberal Democrate you know you've got a problem.

So how long do you think it'll last, Nick Clegg may enjoy power, he may cling desperately with every ounce of delusion he has but how long do you think a member of his party challenges him for leadership or he is ousted by multiple members of the party?

rick_chasey

As soon as people start thinking about a general election it'll fall through...

gtvlusso

Nick Clegg appears to have gone from being fairly observant and a fair man, to a complete cowardly rat....I voted for Lib Dems on the basis of Uni tuition fees and felt that, although I did not agree with everything in the manifesto, they came close to something I could live with. Being a life long Labour voter, I fel that Labour had no chance of winning with Mr Brown in charge and I thought that Cameron was just a posh t0sser.

This seems to sum him up:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politic ... es-me.html

What a f*cking mook.....

I feel betrayed and I think this will be the death of Lib Dems - welcome to a 2 party system, just like our "Special" friends in America.

iclestu

Rick Chasey wrote:

As soon as people start thinking about a general election it'll fall through...

+1, but not before. both parties are too power needy to allow it to collapse sooner. However, that pretty much makes it full term.

I'm not so convinced as you are, DDD, that they can't make it stick. Crucially, I believe that Clegg is not isolated in his desire for power. How many opportunities does a Lib Dem MP get to sit on the other side of the house?

They cannot feasibly get it all their own way. I think they accept that and think that, protests aside, ultimately at election time thier voters will accept it too. They are the minority party in a coalition. They have some power but not a lot - exactly as it should be! The AV referendum is a pretty big win for them.

Just my 2penneth worth....

DonDaddyD

I moved from Labour to Lib Dems because I really wanted the Lib Dem candidate to be our MP in Wimbledon, for the same reasons GTV states. Closest thing I could live with.

I couldn't vote Tory, despite my Tory leanings the Conservative values here don't suit or support someone like me or my background.

Incidentally I'm really liking Ed Miliband the intellectual and though I'd have prefered to have seen his brother as leader and Ed (the brains) doing something actually important like Chancellor Labour are winning me back, if nothing else they seem the lesser of three evils.

All that said I think if the Coalition lasts after this Christmas it'll go full term. If it doesn't it may actually work out worse. Lib Dems have lost their voters, Labour hasn't won it's voters back yet. Which means the Tories could get in with a majority. I have visions of Cameron laughing maniacally into the microphone on National TV at the British public.

iclestu

iclestu wrote:

I'm not so convinced as you are, DDD, that they can't make it stick.

Hmm - having re-read your original post i'm not convinced you actually stated that you thought it was going to crumble. The implication I assumed at first reading from you describing the pressures on the Lib Dems was not actually stated as your view point.

I hope I have not misrepresented your views, DDD, apologies if I have

TheStone

Can't see them winning the AV ref. There won't be a big enough turnout because no-one cares.

The coalition will limp on for while, but not sure it'll make full term. There's too much of the recession that's been held back by even more govt debt that'll begin to hit soon. The cuts haven't really happened. In total it will be just 1% this year, which means state failure (see Ireland, Greece, Portugal) is ever closer.

DonDaddyD

iclestu wrote:

They cannot feasibly get it all their own way. I think they accept that and think that, protests aside, ultimately at election time thier voters will accept it too. They are the minority party in a coalition. They have some power but not a lot - exactly as it should be! The AV referendum is a pretty big win for them.

Oh I agree, they aren't the majority party. But the key policies being pushed through - that the Lib Dems are seemingly supporting - are almost the complete opposite of what the party stands for that I can't see how they can come back from that to be honest.

I mean should the Lib Dems say something like free University tuition fees for all or even a small percentage of the Biritish taxpayers, should I ever believe them again.

When Clegg was preaching social mobility while most low income families/individuals are being moved out into zone 6 all I could think was hypocrit.

Then there is the NHS... and as I said, the action being right or wrong isn't being questioned it's about supporting a stance that is on the other side of the political spectrum of the party he leads I have a real issue with.

I don't think there is any coming back from that.

Robstar24

the idea that the tories and lib dems are polar opposites is wrong. whilst most of the membership of the LDs might be described as social democrats who would make better bedfellows with labour than the tories, this isn't true of the leadership, many of whom are the so-called Orange Bookers (particularly Clegg and David Laws, who edited the Orange Book, but also Huhne, Cable) who advocate old school liberalism, with an emphasis on a smaller state and respect for individual freedom and property rights. these chime with some tory touchstones, though the tories differ in being generally more socially authoritarian, eurosceptic and less pro-globalisation.

whilst labour and, previously, the tories were seen as the most internally divided parties, the lib dems are much the same, but perhaps until may 2010 they received less attention on this issue given their perennial role as the third party of british politics.

rjsterry

You seem to have the Lib Dems down as somewhere between Labour and the Socialist Workers' Party. I don't think the Liberals (the Lib bit) have ever been that leftwing. That was more brought in with the merger with the SDP (Social Democratic Party), when the party was formed. The Lib Dems are quite a broad church compared with the other two big parties, and I would say that they definitely fall between Labour and the Tories on the political spectrum.

Robstar24

and to add to this, the lib dems and their supporters are now learning that there is a HUGE difference between what parties promise and what they actually deliver, particularly when in the coalition straitjacket. the lib dems were used to saying they could deliver the earth, because their prospects of gaining office were slim at best.

on the housing benefits question, at risk of being provocative: is it really SO wrong that there should be a limit on the amount to which the state will subsidise your housing costs? I commute daily from zone 6 (which incidentally is rather nice) and i claim no housing benefit (wouldn't be eligible anyway given income) and i don't really see why others should be able to benefit from an unlimited subsidy in their living costs.

ga02clr

Anyone who feels cheated by the lib dems is naive. If you read the manifestos of political parties over time and then look at what those parties implement when in government there are always significant differences. If anyone who voted Lib realistically thought a Lib dem government would be the result would have been considered mad! The Lid dems did not do well in the electoral vote but actually have played there cards well. They have managed to implement some of their policies and curb some of the Conservative party policies.
The length of term this will last is unless the economy improves faster than anyone thinks or one or other party feels like committing suicide will be as close to full terms as possible. Considering the labour party currently has poor leadership and left a bankrupt economy, it is purely due to historic allegiances and the hatred of cuts that gives them any support at the moment. They now form the ‘alternative’ to the current Government. The fact they have no economic policy detailed and still seem ignorant to the concept of interest payments is eluding many.
The labour party have been effectively saved from bankruptcy by the unions who have written a blank cheque to help out a party that could not manage its own finances or the countries.
While I don’t like the cuts to sections of the public services that are occurring and no one likes to see people losing their job some points need to be noted.
Sections of the public sector have been vastly inefficient; this is in many cases not through the fault of the workers on the ground but the processes put in place by former administrations. Private organisations would not have operated in such a way and this now has to change to get value for money.
If you consider your own personal situation and household income... In the years when things where good and everyone was buying houses (with a large mortgage), credit was available with store cards and credit cards and pay rises resulting in increases in income were relatively common, people went on holidays, maybe got a new car every few years and possibly a few new bikes. Now when things started to go downhill a little in your house you have two options when you have less cash. You can try and cut back on your spending so you can pay off your credit card debt, maybe don’t go on holiday, no new bikes etc.... The other option is you can take out another credit card to pay off the one you have already maxed out. If you don’t somehow manage to make more money quickly then you have to then do this again and your debt just increases. Switch to an interest only mortgage where all you are paying is the interest not actually reducing your debt. All your earnings start going to paying off interest and things just get worse.
If you were in this situation which to be honest many of us are what are you doing? That is the same thing the current Government is facing just on a much larger scale.
As a final point....
Germany is currently going through a growth period... the reason for this is while we saw wage inflation when Gordon Brown was chancellor they realised they were spending a little too much and started the austerity measures early. Gordon told us he had stopped boom and bust.... no he had just delayed it and made it much much worse. The converse to Germany is Ireland..... we are between the two but unfortunately closer to Ireland!

daviesee

You are all making the mistake of thinking it is all about policies.

They are all politicians. It is all about greed :evil:

Robstar24

ga02clr wrote:

Germany is currently going through a growth period... the reason for this is while we saw wage inflation when Gordon Brown was chancellor they realised they were spending a little too much and started the austerity measures early. Gordon told us he had stopped boom and bust.... no he had just delayed it and made it much much worse. The converse to Germany is Ireland..... we are between the two but unfortunately closer to Ireland!

that is a bit of a simplification of the German process. through the 90s and early noughties the German economy was in the doldrums for a number of reasons, chief amongst which were the costs of reunification (much of east german infrastructure had to be brought up to standard, which cost a lot) as well as the problem of overmighty trade unions that had negotiated overly generous settlements for their members. For instance: until 2002 it was possible for a laid off German worker to either take another job if it came along, or get unemployment benefit of 50% of their last wage until retirement. unsurprisingly many chose the latter, as it offered a decent standard of living with no work (plus certain costs such as commuting and work clothes stripped out). germany chose to address these issues during the global economic boom (it was known as the sick man of europe for most of the 90s and early 00s) and is now reaping the benefits, although again this is in part because their economy is driven in large part by small firms that export a lot of manufactured goods, rather than being overly dependent on one sector (ie finance) and living on a glut of consumer debt.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

You seem to have the Lib Dems down as somewhere between Labour and the Socialist Workers' Party. I don't think the Liberals (the Lib bit) have ever been that leftwing. That was more brought in with the merger with the SDP (Social Democratic Party), when the party was formed. The Lib Dems are quite a broad church compared with the other two big parties, and I would say that they definitely fall between Labour and the Tories on the political spectrum.

When Blair was in power the lib dems were to the left of him.

iclestu

DonDaddyD wrote:

Oh I agree, they aren't the majority party. But the key policies being pushed through - that the Lib Dems are seemingly supporting - are almost the complete opposite of what the party stands for that I can't see how they can come back from that to be honest.

I think that the party stands for (amongst other things) a change to the voting system that makes such party 'pacts' and the subsequent eventualities inevitable, or at the very least much more likely. Surely this is something their core voters accept, (even wish for!?) regardless of the specifics involved this time round?

bails87

As was said on another forum

Nick Clegg's son: Why do people hate you daddy?
Nick Clegg: Because I'm a lying b*stard son, that's why.

:evil:

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You seem to have the Lib Dems down as somewhere between Labour and the Socialist Workers' Party. I don't think the Liberals (the Lib bit) have ever been that leftwing. That was more brought in with the merger with the SDP (Social Democratic Party), when the party was formed. The Lib Dems are quite a broad church compared with the other two big parties, and I would say that they definitely fall between Labour and the Tories on the political spectrum.

When Blair was in power the lib dems were to the left of him.

He never struck me as particularly leftwing, although I have to say the traditional political denominations are becoming less and less useful and accurate as descriptions of specific parties.

rick_chasey

Robstar24 wrote:

and to add to this, the lib dems and their supporters are now learning that there is a HUGE difference between what parties promise and what they actually deliver, particularly when in the coalition straitjacket. the lib dems were used to saying they could deliver the earth, because their prospects of gaining office were slim at best.

I think many lib dem supporters are naive. The point of a political party, ultimately, is to be in power, so they can govern - all being in opposition is is saying how you would be governing - but not actually affected or effecting anything.

With the uni fees they were also a little naive. It was a tory policy which the lib dems couldn't really fight so early on in the coalition. It's a credit to the Tories that the sprung that on them so early - Clegg took all the heat for what was ultimately a Tory policy.

There's something perhaps to be said for getting in bed with a party that alienates so much of your base > Labour would have been an easier fit, but then they were chronically unpopular on the #1 issue - the economy.

Ultimately you need to make decisions. The party elected a right-of-centre leader, so it made sense to him - and that's the penalty you pay for leaving your base support to become more popular to the electorate.

DonDaddyD

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You seem to have the Lib Dems down as somewhere between Labour and the Socialist Workers' Party. I don't think the Liberals (the Lib bit) have ever been that leftwing. That was more brought in with the merger with the SDP (Social Democratic Party), when the party was formed. The Lib Dems are quite a broad church compared with the other two big parties, and I would say that they definitely fall between Labour and the Tories on the political spectrum.

When Blair was in power the lib dems were to the left of him.

He never struck me as particularly leftwing, although I have to say the traditional political denominations are becoming less and less useful and accurate as descriptions of specific parties.

This because my take was

Lib Dems -- Labour [Centre] Tory -- UKIP (or someother right wing)

Of course you can take an individual and find that they sit slightly to the left or right of where their party is positioned but not so far left or right to warrant needing to be placed within another party.

This of course is what I'm finding with Clegg. It's not that he is more Labour than Lib, the guy is coming across as an out right Tory.

Anywho:

Left -- Left of Centre -- Centre -- Right of Centre -- Right
Ed Miliband
Blair
Clegg/Cameron/Thatcher

Brown

You would think to place Clegg with Ed.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You seem to have the Lib Dems down as somewhere between Labour and the Socialist Workers' Party. I don't think the Liberals (the Lib bit) have ever been that leftwing. That was more brought in with the merger with the SDP (Social Democratic Party), when the party was formed. The Lib Dems are quite a broad church compared with the other two big parties, and I would say that they definitely fall between Labour and the Tories on the political spectrum.

When Blair was in power the lib dems were to the left of him.

He never struck me as particularly leftwing, although I have to say the traditional political denominations are becoming less and less useful and accurate as descriptions of specific parties.

I think it's more that a) what people used to think of as left now is dated and b) leaders often don't represent the base.

Blair was very to the right of the party

Clegg is to the right of his party

Cameron is ostensibly to the left of his party (with all that Green bullsh!t he pushed during the election for example)

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

You seem to have the Lib Dems down as somewhere between Labour and the Socialist Workers' Party. I don't think the Liberals (the Lib bit) have ever been that leftwing. That was more brought in with the merger with the SDP (Social Democratic Party), when the party was formed. The Lib Dems are quite a broad church compared with the other two big parties, and I would say that they definitely fall between Labour and the Tories on the political spectrum.

When Blair was in power the lib dems were to the left of him.

He never struck me as particularly leftwing, although I have to say the traditional political denominations are becoming less and less useful and accurate as descriptions of specific parties.

I think it's more that a) what people used to think of as left now is dated and b) leaders often don't represent the base.

Blair was very to the right of the party

Clegg is to the right of his party

Cameron is ostensibly to the left of his party (with all that Green bullsh!t he pushed during the election for example)

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. I don't think many people are consistently left or right wing. In reality people tend to hold a variety of views that could be assigned to various points on the political spectrum. Similarly I think there are a number of issues that are not necessarily as firmly tied to one particular ideology as tends to be assumed. Green issues is a good example: our Green Party is pretty solidly leftwing, but over in the US, some of the tightest environmental legislation has been brought in by Republican governors.

Going back to whether Lib Dem voters should be disappointed or not: I'd imagine those that defected from Labour probably are disappointed, but I don't think these are the party's 'base'.

Jay dubbleU

Whatever happens at the next election the Lib Dems are stuffed for the next generation

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

I think it's a bit more subtle than that. I don't think many people are consistently left or right wing. In reality people tend to hold a variety of views that could be assigned to various points on the political spectrum. Similarly I think there are a number of issues that are not necessarily as firmly tied to one particular ideology as tends to be assumed. Green issues is a good example: our Green Party is pretty solidly leftwing, but over in the US, some of the tightest environmental legislation has been brought in by Republican governors.

Of course that's the case with generalisations - but, there is a strong correlation between left and right wing ideas and they tend to be grouped together. The lot who I work with are textbook examples of right-wingers. Absolutely classic. Even to their attitudes to things that are ostensibly not political.

rjsterry

At the last election Mrs RJS bumped into some Young Conservatives out canvasing in Sutton. She had assumed that the standard Surrey Tory 'horsey gel' was a bit of an exaggerated caricature found mainly in the pages of leftwing periodicals, but was surprised to find that such people actually existed.

ga02clr

I agree that my description of Germany was simplified but I was in danger of writing an essay.....

One interesting point of note was it could be argued that the conservatives have the most to gain from calling an early election... they may have in fact missed the boat.

They were and may still be the only party that can afford to fight a general election financially. The labour party have no cash and the unions would have to stump up to fund the election again, something they would not find that easy to pass on to hard up members.

The really brave call from the conservatives would be push through legislation that limits the donations from any one donor or organisation to a high but not astronomical level (something the lib dems would support) and then call an election. The conservatives get far more funding from individuals than labour who's money comes from the unions in big chunks. Yes some very rich donors do give large sums to the conservatives but this is dwarfed in many cases by union donations. Set the limit at the right level and they could bankrupt the labour party.

This would obviously be very ballesy and high risk for a party in power with a long theoretical term.

It will also be interesting to see how Scotland continues to fund free university for all policy and how long the funding matrix weighting means English Tax payers subsidise the Scottish and Welsh etc.

dhope

daviesee wrote:

You are all making the mistake of thinking it is all about policies.

They are all politicians. It is all about greed :evil:

Too lazy an argument to make. Would imagine most could make more than their £65k MPs salary if they were simply looking to be greedy.

daviesee

ga02clr wrote:

It will also be interesting to see how Scotland continues to fund free university for all policy and how long the funding matrix weighting means English Tax payers subsidise the Scottish and Welsh etc.

Not again....... :roll:

Come up and have a look at the state of the roads. You will get an idea of where the money has been saved fairly quickly. It's called a budget. Scotland chooses to cover university fees - at the cost of other services, although this is also under review.

tailwindhome

ga02clr wrote:

and how long the funding matrix weighting means English Tax payers subsidise the Scottish and Welsh etc.

Still with this?

So were do you want to draw the lines, which parts of Great Britain do you want to cut off

Asking how long will England tax payers subsidise implies that people in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland are somehow scrounging off the rest of Britain.....Balls to that....my tax money goes to subsidise the millions of cheap lager drinking, Jeremy Kyle watching, fag smoking scumbags which make up a large part of your 50 million population.

Also where are you going to draw the line, which bits of Britain are being cut off, just the celtic nations or is the North of England going too? Maybe everywhere outside London. Maybe build a wall at the end of Greg66's street and everyone else can eff off.

Cut NI off if you want....you owe us 600 years back rent and you're keeping Paddy Kielty and Coronation Street Jim

EKE_38BPM

Patrick Kielty was pretty good once. There again, so was Eddie Murphy.
I don't watch Corrie so I have no idea who Jim is.

Oh, this is a politics thread. Boring. Important, but boring.

rjsterry

dhope wrote:

daviesee wrote:

You are all making the mistake of thinking it is all about policies.

They are all politicians. It is all about greed :evil:

Too lazy an argument to make. Would imagine most could make more than their £65k MPs salary if they were simply looking to be greedy.

Quite. As if the rest of us don't have a large dose of self-interest too.