May 2011 Election

[capybara]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/election/labour-to-kick-start-faltering-campaign-1.1097653

I always feel that if you have to relaunch a product it is an admission that there was a flaw in the original one. Certainly the case here. Dear old Elmer will be desperately hoping that things improve. Labour is in serious trouble and they know it. So they will do what the always do fight dirty. The have tried the Tories are back" card and that has failed,they cannot win the Salmond v Gray battle, and by adopting so many of the SNP,s policies they have backed themselves into a corner. Hard to see where they can go. They have already tried the SNP broken policy theme to little effect. Still they have to try The weekend polls will make difficult reading.Maybe the should stick to reading the Record , and a quick call to the Samaritens will help.

[chico]

it's not just that they jumped into bed with the tories it's that they intentionally set out to appeal to people who dislike the tories then jumped into bed with them. they reached out to students and people who were disillusioned with labour over iraq and other matters then used those votes to prop up a party their voters despise.

as vince cable said today there is a clear majority in this country for progressive parties. 55% of voters at the last election voted for centre left parties yet we ended up with a right wing coalliton attempting to privatise every single public service. how did this happen? because of quisling clegg.

Clegg did the right thing. Labour wasn't the biggest party after the 2010 General Election, if he had agreed a liblab deal, ol' one eye would have plodded on with his overspending whilst the country went to shit.

Making difficult decisions in the national interest won't be popular, but can be respected, he's getting Libdem policies through and can moderate Tory ones.

Well done Clegg!

[capybara]

Clegg did the right thing. Labour wasn't the biggest party after the 2010 General Election, if he had agreed a liblab deal, ol' one eye would have plodded on with his overspending whilst the country went to shit.

Making difficult decisions in the national interest won't be popular, but can be respected, he's getting Libdem policies through and can moderate Tory ones.

Well done Clegg!

I don't think anybody can claim that the Lids Jumped into bed with the Tories.As you say the Tories were the biggest party. And Brown did little to bring about a coalition of the centre left. Remember even a Lib -Lab pact was going to fall short of a majority. Labour were happy to go off and lick there wounds and leave others to clean up their mess. They can sit back watch the Lib Dems implode and then it will be a straight fight with the Tories next time around. Also nobody could have gone into coalition with Brown. He has just been rejected by the British people. He was finished.

[The big chair]

Sorry, but I have to call you up on this. Exactly what the f**k did people expect them to do when the election result made doing a deal with the Tories the only viable way of forming a government?

Sorry, but why exactly did the Lib Dems feel the need to form a goverment? Would they have been less influential if they'd stuck with their pledges and left us with a minority government? Wouldn't their position have been stronger if their block vote had to be courted on a case by case basis? The only reason I can think why they were so eager to jump into bed with another party is to massage some egos.

[Reynard]

Sorry, but why exactly did the Lib Dems feel the need to form a goverment? Would they have been less influential if they'd stuck with their pledges and left us with a minority government? Wouldn't their position have been stronger if their block vote had to be courted on a case by case basis? The only reason I can think why they were so eager to jump into bed with another party is to massage some egos.

Maybe to try and make sure that there was a stable government for a period of time to try and sort out the absolutely f**k up that Labour made of the economy?

The only reason people enter politics at all is for reasons of ego so your last point is irrelevant anyway.

The fact is that they have at least stabilised the country and kept Labour out of power and influence for five years. That's good enough for me. And they are acting as a lighnting rod for the Tories as well, which is hilarious.

[T_S_A_R]

Well, let that be a lesson to you....

i didn't vote for them!

i had clegg twigged as a tory boy from the start. the top tiers of the lib dems are filled with people who see it as an easier career route than the big two parties.

[T_S_A_R]

http://www.heraldsco. ..paign-1.1097653

I always feel that if you have to relaunch a product it is an admission that there was a flaw in the original one. Certainly the case here. Dear old Elmer will be desperately hoping that things improve. Labour is in serious trouble and they know it. So they will do what the always do fight dirty. The have tried the Tories are back" card and that has failed,they cannot win the Salmond v Gray battle, and by adopting so many of the SNP,s policies they have backed themselves into a corner. Hard to see where they can go. They have already tried the SNP broken policy theme to little effect. Still they have to try The weekend polls will make difficult reading.Maybe the should stick to reading the Record , and a quick call to the Samaritens will help.

micheal kelly actually blamed the tim-bombs on salmond's supposed mishandling of the sectarianism summit on the news the other night.

expect labour to scrape the bottom of the barrell before this is over and to revert to mcconnell type divisise politics.

[Ad Lib]

Sorry, but why exactly did the Lib Dems feel the need to form a goverment? Would they have been less influential if they'd stuck with their pledges and left us with a minority government? Wouldn't their position have been stronger if their block vote had to be courted on a case by case basis? The only reason I can think why they were so eager to jump into bed with another party is to massage some egos.

They would have been much less influential if they didn't go into coalition. Unlike in Scotland, there exists no additional threshold to dissolve parliament. The Tories would have failed to get their budget through as a minority government and we would have had another general election well before December, which would have probably delivered a Tory majority. And you'd have just loved that, wouldn't you?

[Ad Lib]

i didn't vote for them!

i had clegg twigged as a tory boy from the start. the top tiers of the lib dems are filled with people who see it as an easier career route than the big two parties.

Now this is just a nonsense. This could absolutely be levelled at some of his predecessors. Content as a party of reasonable protest without ever actually doing something about it or trying to get enough power to change anything. If Nick Clegg were simply a Tory who wanted an easy ride he'd have had two options to choose from.

The first: join the Tories, and rely on a reasonable degree of political talent to reach a similar senior position by roughly the same time-frame.

The second option is to join the Lib Dems, a party with people who actively despise the Tories, go into the European Parliament for two terms, then go to Westminster, fight for the leadership and get approval from several layers of a federal structure, then form a coalition government, alienating a large chunk of his voters and risking political oblivion if things go wrong.

Do really think that a closet Tory would choose option 2?

[xbl]

I hardly think that for a progressive and liberal party, backing a funding system that left the poorest quarter of graduates better off constitutes a "capitulation" when their actual manifesto pledge was completely unrealistic in the first place.

Really? Why is it then that people don't seem to be promoting this as such? You'd think the Lib Dems would be proud of such a thing. No, the reality is that they have helped to introduce massive tuition fees. Proper enormous ones. This wouldn't be so bad in itself, I mean as you said, Labour did something similar, and it is one of the consequences of coalition government, but every coalition has to have lines in the sand drawn by the parties. You have issues you can negotiate on, and then you have the big issues that are fixed. We saw this in Scotland with the Lib Dems refusing coalition because of the Independence Referendum.

Student fees were this issue. They made their whole campaign about them, they had those big novelty pledges, and so much was focused on this whole student fees thing, it was the centre of their election! This was even recognised when they got a deal with the coalition initially to abstain on the issue. To then turn round, ramp up the fees, and vote for it, it was very much the complete capitulation, and no matter what else they do, they will always be tainted by that.

As for their manifesto commitment, was it really that unrealistic? We don't have fees up here. You're at uni now, and you're visibly not paying £27,000 for three years of degree.

[vikingTON]

The Tories would have failed to get their budget through as a minority government and we would have had another general election well before December, which would have probably delivered a Tory majority.

Based on what exactly?

[Ad Lib]

Really? Why is it then that people don't seem to be promoting this as such? You'd think the Lib Dems would be proud of such a thing. No, the reality is that they have helped to introduce massive tuition fees. Proper enormous ones. This wouldn't be so bad in itself, I mean as you said, Labour did something similar, and it is one of the consequences of coalition government, but every coalition has to have lines in the sand drawn by the parties. You have issues you can negotiate on, and then you have the big issues that are fixed. We saw this in Scotland with the Lib Dems refusing coalition because of the Independence Referendum.

Well they actually are promoting it as such but nobody's fucking listening.

Without wanting to get bogged down in the tuition fees debate again, I'd make the following points: the actual figure of the fee is completely meaningless for the vast majority of graduates as it's not a real debt (just a quasi graduate tax of 9% on earnings above £21k with an upper contributions limit and a 30 year maximum time limit). The IFS study into it suggested that the bottom quarter of graduates would pay less than they do now.

The fees are not the bad thing for students. The "bit they have to pay back" is. Student debt is not factored into the availability of other credit (so it doesn't affect your chances of getting a mortgage, for example) and if you are earning the national median wage you'd be paying back absolute pittance to the cost of your education. Graduates earn, according to some recent studies, an average of £400k more over their working life than non-graduates. If they have to pay back about 1/6 of that, is that really such a bad thing? Those graduates who don't earn as much don't pay as much back. That's fair. That's progressive. That's an effective way of funding Universities.

And all that's before you consider the additional accessibility requirements, which include full funding of the poorest students and wider availability of grants.

NOTHING is truly non-negotiable in politics. The Lib Dems were wrong not to give proper consideration to a proper deal with the SNP. That's my view. I'm not going to apologise for it.

Student fees were this issue. They made their whole campaign about them, they had those big novelty pledges, and so much was focused on this whole student fees thing, it was the centre of their election! This was even recognised when they got a deal with the coalition initially to abstain on the issue. To then turn round, ramp up the fees, and vote for it, it was very much the complete capitulation, and no matter what else they do, they will always be tainted by that.

As for their manifesto commitment, was it really that unrealistic? We don't have fees up here. You're at uni now, and you're visibly not paying £27,000 for three years of degree.

It wasn't "their whole campaign" at all. A big part? Absolutely. But it was a completely undeliverable pledge when so much by way of public spending cuts were round the corner. I think it was frankly courageous to turn around and say that they were going to break their pledge on what is actually a meaningless figure (all student fees are in this country as they are completely notional) and support a more progressive funding system. If people think that changing their mind on a fucking tiny issue constitutes a complete capitulation writ large meaning they never deserve to be voted for ever again, when other parties have done FAR FAR worse, then frankly said electorate are a bunch of fucking morons.

We don't have fees up here, yet the independent University funding body says we have a fucking huge funding gap. You do the maths.

Based on what exactly?

Do you really think a minority administration would have lasted more than 5 minutes?

[vikingTON]

Do you really think a minority administration would have lasted more than 5 minutes?

Do I think the Tories would have won a majority? Even if we follow your premise on the first part there is no evidence whatsoever to support your second claim. It is fantasy island stuff.

[Ad Lib]

Do I think the Tories would have won a majority? Even if we follow your premise on the first part there is no evidence whatsoever to support your second claim. It is fantasy island stuff.

Well it's that or Labour would have won more seats to make a deal the other way viable (unlikely). Or complete and utter paralysis when the electorate deliver exactly the same result again.

[Reynard]

They would have been much less influential if they didn't go into coalition. Unlike in Scotland, there exists no additional threshold to dissolve parliament. The Tories would have failed to get their budget through as a minority government and we would have had another general election well before December, which would have probably delivered a Tory majority. And you'd have just loved that, wouldn't you?

Yep. They have got a fair old chunk of their manifesto into action. As opposed to having f**k all of their manifesto being enacted if they were on the sidelines whining. They were dead right to take on a coalition government. And although the left are whining like bitches about it, the coalition have delivered a pretty stable government so far. And the country badly needed stability after the socialist fuckwits tried to fucking bankrupt the place as usual. c***s.

[Swampy]

There was me thinking that in coalitions there sometimes has to be compromise and (especially) the smaller party with one sixth of the seats of such a coalition might not be able to get their own way on everything. Silly me.

Of course they wouldn't get their way on everything - that would be unrealistic.

But this was a central campaign pledge, and there was *massive* public outcry against it, but still they went along with it.

I hardly think that for a progressive and liberal party, backing a funding system that left the poorest quarter of graduates better off constitutes a "capitulation" when their actual manifesto pledge was completely unrealistic in the first place.

How on earth is this a point in their favour? "Oh, we put it in the manifesto but it was a load of rubbish so you can't blame us for going back on our word."

Why is it that people don't regard Labour, who stood on a manifesto pledge not to introduce tuition fees (then top-up fees 4 years later) and then introduced both, as "capitulating"? Will lots of Labour voters "never vote Labour again" because they had the audacity to make students contribute towards the cost of their education?

Two separate questions here. I think "people" do regard Labour as being mendacious and opportunistic (rather than capitulating) and simply promising what sounds good without any consideration for reality. Which is one reason why they were so heavily defeated in the last general election.

For the second question, I think "people" overlaps with *some* disillusioned Labour voters, but you don't need me to tell you that Labour's core vote is largely impervious to things like facts.

That's another one for the list "Questions to which the answer is no". The harsh truth is that people are scathing at the Lib Dems because they had the audacity to form a coalition with the Tories.

There's definitely some truth in that. They're getting what they deserve in that regard.

They could have ended global poverty and the Tory wiccaman would still be used to demonise them.

Umm... the Tories are a corporatist party, they wouldn't want to end global poverty even if they could, it goes against everything they stand for. Nice rhetorical flourish otherwise.

You're seeing this rhetorical nonsense from Labour again in this Scottish Election, except targeted at the SNP. It's a palpably ridiculous line to take that anyone who works with the Tories of today must somehow all jerk off to Thatcher while kicking a coalminer whenever they get up in the morning.

Well, no, nobody's saying that at all. The Lib Dems are probably ideologically no different now as they were a year ago. But they made the Faustian bargain, and they're having to do a lot of things they wouldn't normally do, and they are - rightly - being punished by the electorate for it.

[Swampy]

Sorry, but this is rubbish again. They didn't "jump into bed" with the Tories. They forced them to drop their inheritance tax plans, brought the lowest paid out of income tax completely, increased the rate of capital gains tax, secured control orders reform, stopped the Tories from getting rid of the Human Rights Act, secured a referendum on some sort of voting reform, the like of which we have never seen before, ramped up the pressure for ending child detention at Dungavel, delivered their pupil premium and more besides. If that's "jumping into bed" with the Tories then the Tories really can't be that bad.

With the exception of the voting reform referendum - which is itself half-assed - they could have contributed to every single one of these things from the opposition benches. I don't think AV - as opposed to AV+ or a properly proportional system - is sufficient to balance out their capitulation elsewhere in policy, and judging from the polls I don't think the electorate at large does either.

[nessies long lost ghost]

I don't think anybody can claim that the Lids Jumped into bed with the Tories.As you say the Tories were the biggest party. And Brown did little to bring about a coalition of the centre left. Remember even a Lib -Lab pact was going to fall short of a majority. Labour were happy to go off and lick there wounds and leave others to clean up their mess. They can sit back watch the Lib Dems implode and then it will be a straight fight with the Tories next time around. Also nobody could have gone into coalition with Brown. He has just been rejected by the British people. He was finished.

Absolutely, They didn't even plan on who would be in their negotiating teams until after the election even though most of the polls said it would be a hung parliament , while Cameron was ready with a team and had some policies that he would be willing to sacrifice.

[Ad Lib]

Of course they wouldn't get their way on everything - that would be unrealistic.

But this was a central campaign pledge, and there was *massive* public outcry against it, but still they went along with it.

The public "outcry" wasn't "massive" at all. It was substantial, but it was not representative of real public opinion on the issue.

How on earth is this a point in their favour? "Oh, we put it in the manifesto but it was a load of rubbish so you can't blame us for going back on our word."

That's not the point. Political parties break key manifesto pledges ALL THE TIME. Manifestos are worth absolutely f**k all. What matters is the set of values underpinning their policies and the degree of competence with which they can manage affairs.

The Lib Dems do not deserve to be punished for reneging on their key pledges any more than the SNP deserve to be panned for reneging on their class sizes pledge or that Labour do for introducing fees when they promised they wouldn't, or the Tories for not holding a referendum on EU membership.

Two separate questions here. I think "people" do regard Labour as being mendacious and opportunistic (rather than capitulating) and simply promising what sounds good without any consideration for reality. Which is one reason why they were so heavily defeated in the last general election.

For the second question, I think "people" overlaps with *some* disillusioned Labour voters, but you don't need me to tell you that Labour's core vote is largely impervious to things like facts.

The point I'm making is that people are adopting double standards with the Lib Dems. I think they were being deliberately opportunistic and populist in making their long-standing student pledge. Just as I think other parties are all out there making unrealistic and naive promises (see Labour's promise to abolish youth unemployment in Scotland by 2017 or the Tories' promise to put an end to EU regulation and to simplify the tax code).

Parties should be measured by what they do, and not by what they promise. Politicians are all lying b*****ds, so just let their actions speak for themselves. Backing a student funding scheme that makes it cheaper for the poorest graduates to get a University education is a profoundly progressive thing to do and is not something any true progressive should criticise the Lib Dems for doing.

There's definitely some truth in that. They're getting what they deserve in that regard.

This is simply ridiculous. Anyone who believes in plural politics must also accept that the most appropriate option for a government might not always be a centre-left love-in.

Umm... the Tories are a corporatist party, they wouldn't want to end global poverty even if they could, it goes against everything they stand for. Nice rhetorical flourish otherwise.

Bollocks. When you've quite finished with your non-factual super-wide brush-tarring we can have a sensible discussion on this.

Well, no, nobody's saying that at all. The Lib Dems are probably ideologically no different now as they were a year ago. But they made the Faustian bargain, and they're having to do a lot of things they wouldn't normally do, and they are - rightly - being punished by the electorate for it.

You've obviously not been paying much attention to the Lib Dems over the last 5 years. Ever since 2004 there has been a sizeable group of centre-right liberals (led by Clegg and Laws in particular) who have been pushing for a different agenda from the traditional one. Their ideology has changed hugely over that period; some people were just too ignorant to realise it. These were the people who were first to call for "savage cuts" in public spending. These were the people who were first to suggest that the likes of Child Benefit should no longer be universal. These were the people who were advocating greater market involvement in the NHS back in 2004. These were the people who were advocating an increased role for non-state providers in education.

They're having to do a lot of things they wouldn't normally do because Labour fucked up the economy.

With the exception of the voting reform referendum - which is itself half-assed - they could have contributed to every single one of these things from the opposition benches. I don't think AV - as opposed to AV+ or a properly proportional system - is sufficient to balance out their capitulation elsewhere in policy, and judging from the polls I don't think the electorate at large does either.

No they couldn't. They could have done sweet f**k all from the opposition benches. The whole damned Parliament would have turned into an unqualified rabble, which would have failed to pass a budget and would have had us back at the polls within 12 months.

They did NOT capitulate on policy. They COMPROMISED. This is what happens when you are a tiny party in a coalition. They HAD to compromise to get concessions on various things: income tax thresholds, on capital gains tax, on Tory plans for inheritance tax, on control orders, on the EU, on the Human Rights Act, on Trident (note they secured a deferral of the final cut-off date for its replacement), on Nuclear Energy (they ensured no new money going into government subsidy of nuclear power), on the House of Lords (progress on an elected chamber, although I'll grant you we could be waiting with baited breath), the end of child detention at Dungavel, a student funding package more generous than the one Lord Browne's review recommended (the Brown review, of course, being signed up to by the Tories AND Labour, although the latter like to conveniently forget that).

If you think this as a record for a tiny party which had near zero influence on government policy for over half a century constitutes a "capitulation", fine, but I don't. I think it's absolutely astonishing they've managed to get that much out of the Tories.

I think AV is a miserable compromise too. Nick Clegg agrees. But it's a substantial concession to get from the established parties even to have the issue of voting reform practically on the agenda. This is the first chance since universal suffrage in this country to make a meaningful difference to the way we elect our politicians.

[Swampy]

The public "outcry" wasn't "massive" at all. It was substantial, but it was not representative of real public opinion on the issue.

Yes, I'm sure the Lib Dem's popularity ratings dropping to 8% (eight percent) was just a coincidence. The "real" public opinion, which I'm sure you dutifully researched, must have been misrepresented somehow!

That's not the point. Political parties break key manifesto pledges ALL THE TIME. Manifestos are worth absolutely f**k all. What matters is the set of values underpinning their policies and the degree of competence with which they can manage affairs.

You can stamp and scream that it's not the point all you want - the public disagreed, as shown in the polls.

It's heartening how you don't think that making a realistic manifesto is in any way related to administrative competence - it means that you won't fail to be delighted by the Tories in future.

The Lib Dems do not deserve to be punished for reneging on their key pledges any more than the SNP deserve to be panned for reneging on their class sizes pledge or that Labour do for introducing fees when they promised they wouldn't, or the Tories for not holding a referendum on EU membership.

If the "size" of the pledge is equal then you're correct, and I don't recall advocating a harsher punishment for the Lib Dems than for any of the other parties.

The Lib Dems are really naive, though, and have handled the fall-out much, much worse than the other three parties.

The point I'm making is that people are adopting double standards with the Lib Dems. I think they were being deliberately opportunistic and populist in making their long-standing student pledge. Just as I think other parties are all out there making unrealistic and naive promises (see Labour's promise to abolish youth unemployment in Scotland by 2017 or the Tories' promise to put an end to EU regulation and to simplify the tax code).

No doubt some people are. But "they're pure worse than us!" isn't an argument against what the Lib Dems have done.

Parties should be measured by what they do, and not by what they promise.

Again, it's great that you don't think the latter is at all related to the former. This is authoritarian thinking in a nutshell. The Lib Dems promised not to capitulate on tuition fees. The Lib Dems capitulated on tuition fees. The Lib Dems never promised to capitulate on tuition fees. The Lib Dems have helped the poorest whatever percent by capitulating on tuition fees. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

More...