Comments on: Opinion: Talking Coalitions

By: C Smith

C Smith — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:41:49 +0000

What this country needs is a coalition of the electorate that

1. cannot be bribed

2. has the power to bring down the Government

This is the route to true democracy.

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 12:25:46 +0000

We should have clear policy positions making it clear that if we do go into coalition with someone, we will be implementing some of OUR policies. Those who voted for us will not feel betrayed as a result.
I would suggest;
1/ STV voting system
2/ Green taxes
3/ Independent foreign policy
4/ No replacement of Trident, money spent on mitigating the effects of global warming
5/ British troops leave Iraq within 3 months
6/ Freedom of Information
7/ End PFI
8/ Referendum on joining the Euro – albeit timing a consideration
9/ Commitment to tackling poverty, including a big redistribution of wealth and power.
10/ Improved civil liberties, including better treatment of asylum seekers, alternatives to prison etc

There is plenty more but I could write all day!
I suspect I missed something out as well.
And yes, we can realistically only focus on some of these.
It is really then a case of how the other parties measure up, and if they don’t we should not be afraid to say no. As long as it is clear that there is a good reason for saying no (Scotland and Wales are frankly not a good example of this).

By: Cy Pomeroy

Cy Pomeroy — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:06:32 +0000

Shouldn’t even consider talking to the Tories, when did they ever do anything for the ordinary vote. They are still the same old right wing bigots they have always been.Cameron is just a media attractive package, unwrap it and you get to see the real product, just you wait and see. Go in with the Tories and kiss goodbye to millions of tactical voters like me for ever.

By: Benjamin Mathis

Benjamin Mathis — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:59:42 +0000

In the event that Liberal Democrats are in a coalition government, the people will not have voted heavily for either of the parties so one must presume that a mix of views best represents the country.

By: MatGB

MatGB — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:46:11 +0000

@ Jim in 9, no, it’s not. It’s a charter of fundamental, inalienable rights, and most of the times the tabloids ‘blame’ it for a legal decision they didn’t like it was a minor influence on the decision anyway, the recent fuss about deportation was the home office being bloody stupid and trying to get something it should’ve known wasn’t going to happen regardless.

Basic rights that can’t be removed, from anyone, for any reason. That’s the point. Read the charter, read the rights, tell me what you actually object to, rather than the media myths.

@ Jim in 10, you say minority support, I can point to poll after poll that says otherwise, so how about we compromise and have a preferendum?

By: Angus Huck

Angus Huck — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:50:42 +0000

“Basically its a charter of rights for criminals as we see alomost every day,the victims of criminality are of minor importance”

If this is true, why have the Countryside Alliance, the Police Federation, the Duke of Westminster and Count Nikolai Tolstoy all pleaded it?

Presumably Jim doesn’t mind being tortured, or having his property seized by the state without compensation?

If the state tried to introduce prohibition, he might even make use of it himself!

By: jim

jim — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:45:03 +0000

‘Crucially, if we are to sustain one of our longest standing policies, any agreement we make must include a commitment to a whipped vote on PR within 18 months of the election.’

As this would not have been in either the Labour or Tory manifesto and at best has only minority support in the country why should the electorate have this forced on them?

By: jim

jim — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:33:25 +0000

‘What is it in the Human Rights Act that Tories find so objectionable? Read the text, and it is actually rather anodyne.’

Basically its a charter of rights for criminals as we see alomost every day,the victims of criminality are of minor importance

By: Benjamin Mathis

Benjamin Mathis — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:23:33 +0000

Precisely my point. It is a piece of Tory posturing that the HRA was imposed on “us” by “them” and must be replaced by something homegrown. I do not believe that the top levels of the Tory party actually wish to abolish any of the rights guaranteed (which is not to say there aren’t elements in the party who would), merely to do a bit of Euro-sceptic scent marking.

Who said the politics of spin was dead?

By: Angus Huck

Angus Huck — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:11:35 +0000

“In Cameron’s defence, he does seem to always specify “to be replaced with a British bill of rights” which I interpret as making it essentially the same as now but not coming from those pesky Europeans.”

The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was drafted by British lawyers. How would a “British bill of rights” differ? What is it in the Human Rights Act that Tories find so objectionable? Read the text, and it is actually rather anodyne. The only informed and coherent criticism of it I have heard as yet comes from a left-wing jurist, Professor John Griffith.

By: Benjamin Mathis

Benjamin Mathis — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:34:51 +0000

In Cameron’s defence, he does seem to always specify “to be replaced with a British bill of rights” which I interpret as making it essentially the same as now but not coming from those pesky Europeans. And, of course, if we didn’t like something proposed we could vote against.
I’m not by any means saying that we should align ourselves with the Tories – I’m a child of the Thatcher era, there are no free passes – any more than with Labour, but that in the event that the duty falls to us to help form a government we must be ready to listen to what Cameron has to say – if for no other reason than to raise Gordon Brown’s bid.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:53:25 +0000

The question is though, can Cameron offer a genuine liberal alternative? He swings whichever way the wind blows and for the past few weeks as been attempting to compete with Brown over who is the least illiberal.

We shouldn’t forget that the full frontal attack on hard-won civil liberties began under Thatcher and accelerated under Major. It was Cameron’s mentor, Michael Howard, who first proposed ID cards and scrapping jury trials. Cameron himself is personally committed to tearing up the Human Rights Act, which in many other countries would be enough to disqualify him from office.

All we have from him is vague reassurances. The lesson we should learn from Blair is that such reassurances are never enough. Better the devil you know…?

By: Benjamin Mathis

Benjamin Mathis — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:43:36 +0000

Well it’s good to see Mark spending his final months in politics saying radical things. I don’t know what conclusion he’ll eventually reach on the merits of coalition but I think it’s true that there will always be pitfalls as well as advantages and we need to be ready for them.
The main point that seems to be debated elsewhere is what he says about coalition partners. Too many of us are still fighting the political battles of the 1980′s and consquently cannot see that Labour are not necessarily the right choice to promote a liberal agenda. In Wales this undoubtedly cost us a shot at government and lost Wales the possibilty of a genuine change of direction. In Scotland we might have been able to hammer out a deal with the SNP.
Obviously Ming is right when he insists we fight for maximum votes and maximum seats but after the next election we have to be clear that any alliance we form must be based on what is in the best interests of the country today and a liberal Britain tomorrow. If Cameron can make more convincing offers of supporting liberal and Lib Dem policies in government then we need to be in a mental place where we can listen.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:38:55 +0000

I’m not convinced Germany’s coalition is responsible for the country dodging controversial decisions as much as public opinion is.

In the UK, the government is failing to introduce the sort of reforms it says are necessary to tackle climate change. That isn’t because of a coalition – that’s because the majority of the public is sceptical about the need to make change. I’m not convinced that coalitions either help or hinder governments when attempting to make necessary but unpopular decisions. The deadlock in Germany regarding economic reform is one thing, but there is similar deadlock in France. On environmental policy, a coalition government as a result of PR could only help push things forward.

By: Geoffrey Payne

Geoffrey Payne — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 12:33:22 +0000

It is not just coalition governments that are struggling, it is governments in general. Consider the USA, Australia and this country.
Personally I think it is crazy we are not in coalition with the SNP in Scotland. Having made important gains in coalition with Labour, we are passing up the opportunity to introduce the Local Income Tax and oppose Trident, as well as introducing radical Green policies – things we could not introduce under the old coalition.
In the 2005 general election the Lib Dems did well at the expense of Labour in Scotland, the only reason why we did badly in the Scottish elections is because of a UK wide trend in which the electorate are not impressed with the current low profile of the party.

By: peter

peter — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:37:53 +0000

“Germany’s coalitions dodge controversial decisions, avoiding difficult but vital reforms because of the need to get along in government.”

True enough, but the coalition is probably making more decisions of these than the previous Government. Italy (your following example) has avoided making big decisions on pensions reform even with “one bloc” govts.