Party A is in politics to gain power so they can put their policies and principles into action. Without power, what they can achieve is limited so they – sensibly – are willing to compromise and indulge in some give-and-take.
Some policies are dropped or changed because to not do so would see less of the programme getting through over all. Deals have to be done, compromises made, unexpected situations dealt with – this is the real world, after all.
The party pushes through some policies it doesn’t really believe are in the the best interests of the country – because they’re popular. Not many fall into this category, but a few do – after all, there’d be a lot fewer good policies going though if the party lost the next election.
The party rightly understands the need to maintain a face of public unity in government even when there are vicious arguments going on behind closed doors – a divided government only helps the opposition.
Party B is a different story altogether. They’re an unprincipled bunch who’d sell their own grandmother to get power and pimp out their sister to keep it.
Once in power they drop some manifesto commitments and change others. They’ll do any sort of backroom deal to hang onto their ministerial limos. They’ll put party before country, sometimes passing populist legislation that’s bad for the nation in a cheap attempt to grub up a few more votes.
The party hides behind spin and PR. Ministers stand up and support policies they don’t really believe in, with the real debates being hidden.
Party A and and Party B are of course the same party. The descriptions both apply to pretty much any political party in the democratic world with serious aspirations of power.
Which one you ascribe to a party probably has a lot more to do with whether you support them than what they actually do.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Knaptoft: The very heart of England
We do have a two-tier policing system but it is not what our homegrown racists think it is.
From Norman settlement to a civic square
Church Green video
Tom Arms
Ruth Bright
Tom Bailey
Alex Macfie
40 Comments
You have been reading “The Political Brain” again haven’t you?
Spot on.
All four of of our key election pledges: fairer tax, political and electoral reform, pupil premium and green economy are in the coalition agreement and being worked on. Surely this is why we spent innumerable hours knocking on doors?
What I find worrying is that the more we attack the compromises with the Tories, the harder it is to campaign for electoral reform. The ineluctable consequence of fairer votes is more hung parliaments and more compromise!
The NUS Video couldn’t be more straightforward!
“All four of of our key election pledges: fairer tax, political and electoral reform, pupil premium and green economy are in the coalition agreement and being worked on”
Fairer Tax- Removing CB from a single High rate tax Payer @£42k and allowing a duel income Family on £80k to keep it, kind of destroys that argument.
Pupil premium- Pledged an extra £2.5bn of New Money, We now know it is not New Money and comes from the existing school budget.
Political reform- That’s a joke when the Liberal democrats have failed to deliver “liberal democracy” the will of the majority. 63% of the electorate voted for slower, less deep cuts.
Abolish Tuition Fee’s- I don’t think we need to go there.
Civil Liberties and Control Orders- It’s going to be a car crash, when Theresa May announces they are to stay.
The list goes on and on and on
I’d like to add to matt’s list in relation to the “pupil premium”: this is also at the expense of cuts to EMA and cuts to support services for the hearing impaired, visually impaired and disabled. In the Nottingham Evening Post it was reported that a six year old child with autism is being denied access to the Speech and Language Therapy Service because of the cuts – they now only support children under five. This takes away from a disabled child access to a service essential to meet his communication needs.
How much lower can the coalition stoop?
Iain it just goes to show you’re always right!
What is missing from this thread is the elephant in the room: the £150bn deficit.
None of the parties were straight with the country about the implications of such a huge deficit.
And, before we, the electorate, get too sanctimonious about our political leaders. Whenever any politician made tentative moves towards being honest, we punished them with lower poll ratings.
And, Sue, your own particular Labour cuts to deal with Labour’s deficit would have hurt which particular group of people who have no needs/feelings?
“Whenever any politician made tentative moves towards being honest, we punished them with lower poll ratings.”
Hmm. I must have missed that.
And, before we, the electorate, get too sanctimonious about our political leaders. Whenever any politician made tentative moves towards being honest, we punished them with lower poll ratings.
That is because the electorate cannot tell which politicians are being honest and which are not. All it can tell is which politicians are promising it the most goodies.
Democracy has its problems.
@Tony Dawson
Actually Tony, there are plenty of cuts that could have been more fairly distributed.
Pension Credits, is already Means tested, Winter Fuel Allowance could have been means tested through the same system, with a Payment made to each Pensioner in December, ready for the colder months.
Taking away Winter Fuel allowance from the Richer Pensioners, who A) Don’t need it and B) Spend their Winter months on the Costa Del Sol
The same System could be used for free TV Licences and Bus Passes.
Child Benefit Cut to any household with a combined income of 60k or more
There are plenty of Quango’s that could be cut as well.
The multi Billion Pound Contract that is paid to ATOS health care which carries out medicals for the DWP should be done away with and instead G.P’s who know their Patients should decide if someone is fit or not to work.
ATOS is an IT company, that is paid for by performance. They are throwing hundreds of thousands of people off Incapacity benefit “to reach government targets” only for those claimants to appeal the decisions at the tribunal.
70% of appeals are successful.
Each Tribunal costs the DWP budget £50.00 for their share of the costs (rent, staff, administration) this information was disclosed under a freedom of information request.
The Department of Justice budget also has to pay towards each tribunal case, though I do not know how much that is.
Atos doe’s not even bother contacting people’s G.P’s or Specialists before carrying out a medical assessment, The G.P’s report is only requested if a claimant goes to appeal.
This makes no sense to me at all.
If the DWP used the patients own G.P’s to carry out medicals they would know, which patients are actually receiving “on going medical ” treatment, And which people where milking the system and claiming incapacity benefit’s for old Injuries that have long been cured.
If G.P’s can be trusted with Billions of Pounds and control the NHS Budgets in their area, why can’t they be trusted to asses which of their patients are fit for work?
This would save Billions of pounds a year alone.
Then there are Tax increases that could be implemented
1% rise in National Insurance, To help pay for increased medical costs, associated with an ageing population and advances in medicine, And also for the rising welfare bill due to the 500’000 redundancies in the Public Sector
Raise income tax by 1%
Remove VAT exemptions from Sports and Recreation, Printing and Publications, Gambling, lottery and Bingo
There are many alternatives to the cuts, that would spread the burden more evenly.
The Coalitions way is not the only option.
They just chose, to hit the poorest the hardest.
And sometimes if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and spends a fortune on a duck house then the fault is not the publics for taking a cynical attitude to politics, politicians and their motives.
Liberal Democrats were by far the most honest of the three parties in that shaming expenses scandal, but as we now know to our cost, the public doesn’t tend to always differentiate politely between Parties on the basis of which way any particular politician wants them to. They mostly make their minds up on that themselves and tend to be extremely harsh in such judgements.
02/11/2010 22.10PM
Just to let you know tuition fees are to be set at up to £9000
Rich kids can pay of all the money at once
is this what you voted for is this fair
Andy Edinburgh
A rather ominous finding in the today’s YouGov poll is the latest figure for voting intentions in the referendum on AV.
Supporters of the status quo now have a lead of 11% over supporters of AV. That’s compared with an 8% point lead a fortnight ago, and a 10% lead for supporters of AV in June.
The way I read Iain’s article is he is describing a fault we’re all sometimes guilty of. We understand the dilemmas that we’ve wrestled with. But when we react to people we disagree with, we have no such understanding.
I very much agree with Iain.
I think we Lib Dems can be unreasonable in our attacks on Labour. For example, I don’t think any party would have done a Comprehensive Spending Review just before an election. And when we react to non-party critics of the coalition, we can be unfair, assuming they are secret supporters of another party.
But the fault applies to critics of the Lib Dems. They sometimes ignore the deficit. They sometimes denounce us for not following a policy, without trying to understand why we disagree. But most common of all, they argue as if 57 Lib Dem MPs had a majority in the House of Commons.
@George Kendall
You keep mentioning the deficit. The deficit is being used as cover for many of the coalitions most unpopular decisions. The deficit is just a smokescreen. Blinding for some, pretty obvious to others.
A Party that makes compromises on policy and are open about why they compromised fit into the first category.
A Party that pretends they changed their mind about the speed of cuts in a few days between election and coalition and breaks personally signed pledges fall into the second category. Unfortunately, uuf you give your word and break it, your word can no longer be trusted.
If Clegg had been honest and said Lib Dems would support the Tory plans for faster reduction in order to temper other policies with a Lib Dem slant he would lead party A. If he had insisted, in coalition negotiations, the personal pledges on tuition fees could be kept BUT agreed no minister would activily campaign against the Government policy, he would lead party A. If he had allowed the Tories to cheer the cuts but encourage his MP’s to call them the price of coalition he would lead party A.
Sorry, but in the view of myself and many I know who trusted him at the last election, he leads Party B.
@Anthony Aloysius St
For once Anthony is being kind….ominous isn’t the word – this is heading for a complete disaster – about 30 weeks away from a vote on AV and the big guns of the Tories are not even out yet…. as I have said before it isn’t fair, it isn’t logical and it probably isn’t right, but I sense there a lot of people who having been let down by the Lib Dems are simply not going to support them on this issue. As LDV Bob rightly says….
[The public] mostly make their minds up on that themselves and tend to be extremely harsh in such judgements.
Mine is a mixture of the principled and the scoundrels. I would be doing a disservice to my principles if I contorted my thinking in order to pretend that the scoundrels are actually principled- so I don’t. A lot of you are, a lot of you have scoundrelly principles yourselves so don’t mind in any case, and some of you recognise it. Very few of those who do recognise it post blogs on this site as far as I’ve seen.
‘But the fault applies to critics of the Lib Dems. They sometimes ignore the deficit. They sometimes denounce us for not following a policy, without trying to understand why we disagree. But most common of all, they argue as if 57 Lib Dem MPs had a majority in the House of Commons.’
1) By the stats from the OBR and the NIESR Labour’s plans were projected to leave a lower structural deficit as a percentage of GDP than the Coalition plans because of the impact on growth and tax revenues.
2) This one’s too vague to really answer.
3) That’s not it. It’s the fact that your party actually agrees with a lot of the worst this government plans to do. It’s like what Tony Blair said about the war when Labour people kept saying it was because he had to go along with George Bush- ‘It’s worse than that- I actually agree with him.’
‘Liberal Democrats were by far the most honest of the three parties in that shaming expenses scandal’
They posed as most honest, anyway. David Laws filling his election literature with how honest he was over expenses before the election while secretly paying his expenses to a partner comes to mind.
Presumably this is about the problems of power and the University Tuition fees issue in particular.
There is no need for the Lib Dem MPs to support this policy in government: the colalition agreement expressly allows absention.
Free access to education as a public good is a pretty fundmental Liberal principle.
The party needs a pubic row over principle to differentiate itself from the Tories, and needs to go down fighting.
There is a deficit, but there are other areas to cut: for example, the ring fence round the NHS could be removed: health is less important than education.
No lectures from Labour supporters please: the Browne report was instigated at their government’s request, and has come to the conclusion their government hoped for.
@steve way
“Sorry, but in the view of myself and many I know who trusted him at the last election, he leads Party B.”
I would agree entirely.
The coalition has used the Liberal Democrats Ministers to announce their filth for them.
We have seen Cable announce the Tuition fee’s and has been grilled over and over ever since, He had to cancel a visit to Oxford University, because of a protest. We now know the Cap is 9k “more than what Cable first announced”
Could someone please explain how liberal democrat mp’s have negotiated in this government with the Tories to get a get a better deal? Because the Deals got worse not better, so what influence are you having in this coalition?
We have seen that half witt Alexander talking on behalf of the chancellor, defending the cuts. I have seen Alexander on the news being scrutinised and making a fool of himself more than Osborne.
And then there has been Clegg, Attacking anyone who criticise the policies, arguing that IFS are wrong, Telling everyone these cuts are fair, Arguing that the Budget and CSR was progressive, when it is clearly regressive.
@George Kendall
“They sometimes denounce us for not following a policy, without trying to understand why we disagree. But most common of all, they argue as if 57 Lib Dem MPs had a majority in the House of Commons”
You know I have the utmost respect for you on here, out of all the Libdem posters.
But surly you must recognise that the coalition government is using Lib Dem Ministers as a Human Shield.
The Lib Dem Mp’s have been gagged and ushered to the shadows, whilst the ministers have been used as Scapegoats.
How can Liberal Democrats really be having “influence” in this government when the announcement of tuition fee’s jumped from 7k to 9k, I thought they had been fighting for a “better deal” this last couple of weeks
TW,
As far as I am aware the notion of ‘the public good’ is fundamentally not a liberal principle. Liberal principles are founded on the notion of the autonomous individual and pretty much categorically dismisses the notion of the common good. If it’s communitarianism your after you would be better off with Labour or the Conservatives but probably only on their left wings.
Free education as an instrumental good might be entailed in the notion of the autonomous self but even then only to a basic level sufficient to allow competence to fully access life choices. If it is necessary to have a degree level education in order to be fully capable as an autonomous individual then liberalism could be said to imply free higher education. It also might be justified as an intrinsic good but the justification then becomes much more convoluted. The public good could be a justification for free education but it would not be a liberal one.
And George, might I suggest you should watch more wildlife programmes on the telly, that’s not an elephant in the room that’s giant red herring.
Tony Dawson
I’m not a member of the Labour Party – just a concerned human being, who works with parents of disabled children. I really believe there is no justification, regardless of party politics, in targeting the most vulnerable and disabled. I am a low earner, but would rather pay higher taxes than be part of a nation that appears to be reverting to the law of the jungle. I do blame the Libdems for being party to this – I always thought they were a party of social justice. I did vote Labour in the last election (in the previous two I voted Libdem) – I realised in time that Clegg was a Tory and I will never vote Libdem again.
Remind me how many Labour politicians are being charged and could be facing prison sentences Mike(The Labour one) ?
@Mike(The Labour one)
“By the stats from the OBR and the NIESR Labour’s plans were projected to leave a lower structural deficit as a percentage of GDP than the Coalition plans because of the impact on growth and tax revenues.”
Mike,
I’m surprised. Did you really mean that the deficit would be higher as a result of the cuts?
If only if were true that extra spending would generate more GDP and taxes than it would cost in spending. Then the Darling plan wouldn’t be unnecessary either, and we wouldn’t need any cuts at all.
Unfortunately, that isn’t what the OBR are predicting at all. The following is the OBR’s prediction of net borrowing, in terms of percent of GDP.
08-09 09-10 10-11 11-12 12-13 13-14 14-15OBR pre-Budget forecast 6.7 11.1 10.5 8.3 6.6 5.0 3.9
Change 0.0 -0.1 -0.4 -0.8 -1.1 -1.5 -1.8
June Budget 6.7 11.0 10.1 7.5 5.5 3.5 2.1
See http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/d/junebudget_annexc.pdf (table C10)
As you can see, by 2014-15, they predict that, as a result of the extra measures from the coalition’s deficit reduction plan (on top of the pain of the Darling plan), the percentage of GDP that we borrow will fall by 1.8 percent.
It’s true that continuing to borrow more would mean slightly higher GDP growth in the short term. That’s to be expected. Borrowing tends to bring short-term benefits at the cost of long-term pain. But, despite the small increase in GDP, that extra borrowing will still mean a bigger deficit.
And NIESR agree. As Acting Director Ray Burrell said in http://www.niesr.ac.uk/niesrvideos/pressconference27.07.2010.php , “I don’t think we could have grown our way out of this … I think there is a strong necessity for deficit reduction programmes. And in the April review, we would have strongly advocated a programme of round about this size.”
@matt
“But surly you must recognise that the coalition government is using Lib Dem Ministers as a Human Shield… How can Liberal Democrats really be having “influence” in this government when the announcement of tuition fee’s jumped from 7k to 9k”
There are huge differences of opinion within the party about our policy on tuition fees. Personally, I think there are higher priorities for the limited funds available.
I know I’ll infuriate some Lib Dems in saying this, but the following is how I see the tuition fees issue:
I think there’s a limit on how much the government can raise in taxes, and we’ve probably already reached that limit when it comes to taxing the super-rich. If the choice is between subsidies for bright young people to go to university, or reducing the hardship of the poorest on our society, I go for the latter.
Personally, I’d like a small increase in income tax. But, even if that were possible (and it would have been against the manifestos of both Labour and the Conservatives), for me, there are higher priorities for that extra money: such as rolling back some of the cuts to benefit, increasing the pupil premium, and better training support for the long-term unemployed.
As for the Lib Dem ministers being used as human shields… You, Matt, don’t think the deficit reduction programme is necessary. So of course you think that way. But I don’t agree.
I believe in our ministers, and that they are fighting behind closed doors for social justice. It’s frustrating not to have the details of the way they are conducting that fight. But I can see that there are good reasons for joint cabinet responsibility.
I know you don’t trust them, and think they have sold out. But I disagree. I think that with only 57 MPs, in the context of a terrible deficit crisis and coalition with the Tories, they’ve done a pretty good job.
@JRC
“As far as I am aware the notion of ‘the public good’ is fundamentally not a liberal principle”
That may be true of pure Liberalism, but the Liberal Democrats draw on more than just a narrow Liberal tradition.
From our constitution: we seek to “to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community”.
The word “community” was deliberately used to reflect our belief in the common good.
“George, might I suggest you should watch more wildlife programmes on the telly, that’s not an elephant in the room that’s giant red herring”
Nice line. 😆
@George Kendall: I’ve seen different figures, the NIESR for example (I see you’re quoting them from just after the June budget… so not taking into account the spending review or their most recent comments) predicted that tax revenues would fall enough that the government would only be able to reduce the deficit to 3.6% of GDP. This is from the 20th of October-
http://www.politics.co.uk/news/economy-and-finance/backfiring-cuts-might-slow-deficit-reduction–$21384971.htm
‘Harsh spending cuts could prove counterproductive to dealing with the deficit by lowering Treasury tax revenues, a thinktank has warned.’
‘The National Institute for Economic and Social Research (Niesr) suggested the economy could be hit by the plans contained in today’s comprehensive spending review, contrary to ministers’ expectations.
‘It suggested the government may only be able to reduce the deficit to 3.6% of GDP by 2014/15. This falls far short of its 2.1% target, in today’s money approximately £28 billion. ‘
So the NIESR have predicted that the government’s plans will leave us with a 3.6% structural deficit, not the 2.1% claimed. That is a government forecast they don’t expect it to meet.
Onto the OBR- I used their figures for Labour’s projected deficit because they were at hand. I don’t know if the NIESR has made a prediction for Labour, or I can’t find it anyway. As Fraser Nelson says, it predicted that-
‘the structural deficit would be reduced from 8% now to 2.8% in 2014-15. That is to say, Osborne’s manifesto pledge – to eliminate “the bulk” of the structural deficit – would have happened under Darling. So no extra cut, or tax hike, is needed to meet this pledge. ‘
So 2.8% under Labour according to the OBR in June by 2014/15. 3.6% under the Coalition according to the NIESR in October by 2014/15.
Can I ask why my reply to LDV Bob got deleted? I’m sure I saw it up, and now it’s gone. There was nothing inflammatory in it- it went along the lines of-
Innocent until proven guilty, if proven guilty they should face the consequences. But this doesn’t mean the Lib Dems were saintly, especially when you have people like David Laws posturing as someone in the clear when he was only in the clear because he lied about paying expenses to his partner. The Lib Dems managed to make themselves *look* like the least tainted party, doesn’t mean they weren’t as knee deep in it as everyone else.
@George
“As for the Lib Dem ministers being used as human shields… You, Matt, don’t think the deficit reduction programme is necessary”
George I absolutely think a deficit reduction programme is necessary. I just don’t think the coalitions method is the right way, and there are alternatives.
Can I bring you to your sentence
“From our constitution: we seek to “to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community”
Balance the fundamental values of Liberty.
What happened to Liberal Democracy? The will of the Majority
63% of the Electorate voted against the Conservatives, and 63% of the electorate voted for slower cuts.
How is the party promoting equality, when allowing students from Rich families pay tuition fee’s up front, When forcing students from Lower and Middle income families to be saddled with up to £36’750 worth of debt?
£36’750 at 3% interest above inflation for the next 30 years. This is not equality.
How is the party promoting the fundamental value of community, When It is about to reduce the Local Housing Allowance for millions of people who are reliant on housing benefit, breaking up communities by forcing the poorest people out of the cities?
How is the party safeguarding a fair society when it is about to turn its back on people in care homes, by removing entitlements to DLA Mobility Component.
This does not sound like a fair society to me, and it certainly does not seem very liberal.
@Mike(The Labour one)
Your question about NIESR has prompted me to spend some times looking up their press conference, and very interesting it was too. I include a summary of some of it below.
Regarding the quotes from http://www.politics.co.uk, the key words were “could” and “suggested”. What NIESR were saying is that any programme of cuts tends to underachieve. So, if NIESR are right, and they agree they may not be, and if Osborne doesn’t take any additional measures, and NIESR are sure he will, then he’ll end up with a 3.6% structural deficit. That would be because it’s incredibly hard to make cuts, and NIESR predict that the final cuts will be less deep than he is planning.
As for the statistic from Fraser Nelson. I think Fraser Nelson is referring to the current structural deficit that excludes capital spending. So I think you may be comparing two different figures, one which includes captial spending, the other which does not.
It’s annoying, but these quotes from newspapers and journals are incredibly misleading. Since May, I’ve been reading a number of articles, then reading the source data, and almost without exception, they’ve given a misleading impression. And sometimes, the figures they’ve given have been plain wrong. I found a glaring error on the BBC website that was then corrected. I’m sure similar errors crop up all the time.
Below gives a few points from the NIESR press conference, from just before the CSR. But, of course, just like any journalist account, mine is selective. 😉
The key section is from 1:08 hours into
http://www.niesr.ac.uk/niesrvideos/pressconference19.10.2010.wmv If you have time, it’s interesting, though the sound quality can be quite poor.
Ray Barrell gives two reasons for consolidating debt:
“we have to do something about the level of borrowing we have because it is extremely unfair to our descendents”, and “we have to prepare for the next crisis, because there’s bound to be one.” (He also explains why the risk of a debt default is a bad argument).
Burrell says that NIESR think “taxes will have to rise towards the end of the parliament” because both revenue and spending projections are already optimistic.
He advocates more of the consolidation be done with income tax increases, rather than spending cuts. But he also says: “the budget deficit target is exactly what we think they should be aiming for”, and that there is “absolutely no alternative to getting the debt stock down… they should be aiming for around about the current balance by the end of the parliament.” In other words, he doesn’t believe in cutting slower, but he does believe in taxing more heavily.
He talks about what taxes might have to be raised, and suggests the higher rate income tax.
As a LIb Dem, I enjoyed the next bit …. He says: “Actually, if you look at the last budget, whatever IFS might say, it was a very fair budget in the sense that the tax thresholds were raised which was entirely the right thing to do.”
He says the fact that NIESR doesn’t think Osborne will meet his plan is not a criticism, it is a comment. And that Osborne has a series of other budgets to correct that, and so meet his final target.
@Mike(The Labour one)
Regarding your missing comment. It was up. I saw it. I agree there was nothing inflammatory about it. Perhaps there was another comment that was, and yours got accidentally deleted along with it.
@matt
Re tuition fees, I think I’ve already said why there are other battles that I think are a higher priority.
As for the other issues you raise, partly, it’s because of this terrible budget deficit. Partly, it’s because we are only 57 MPs in a coalition. But, I agree. These welfare cuts are deeply worrying. I’m wishing Lib Dem ministers the best of luck in fighting them behind the scenes. And I’ve voted for Tim Farron for President, because I think, if he wins, it’ll strengthen their hand.
@George
You know the thing that really worries me.
I don’t think the Liberal Democrats, where really ever given a fair chance to retain a sense of identity in this coalition government.
The Tories and I am afraid Clegg, did the maths well before signing the agreement.
By Giving
16 Liberal Democrats Ministerial Jobs
Clegg, Cable, Huhne, Alexander, Moore, Harvey, Webb, Teather, Browne, Burstow, Heath, Lamb, Davey, Stunnell, Baker and Featherstone
2 Lib Dem government whips
Alistair Carmichael and Mark Hunter
5 Parliamentary private secretaries
Swinson, Willott, Crockart, Birtwistle and Hames
3 party whips, appointed by Nick Clegg for internal party management
Bob Smith, Tessa Munt and Stephen Gilbert.
5 “spokesmen”, also appointed by Clegg, to cover those government departments where they have no ministers, such as Tim Farron for International Development and Don Foster for DCMS. Some of these don’t call themselves “spokesman” but “co-chair” of the backbench committee on their subject
Total 31 Mp’s out of 57 who are on the Government payroll that are required to support policies or face the whipp/resign
26 Back Bencher’s Free to Abstain on Tuition Fees only.
Even if all 26 rebel, Tories Policy will go through
Cameron and Clegg knew exactly what they where doing, when all these jobs where given out.
But surly it is plain to see, That the Coalition has made it impossible for Liberal Democrats to retain their identity.
To be honest, it scares the hell out of me.
It’s not democratic and it doesn’t install confidence in Voting for AV and risking further coalition governments, if 1 of the parties is swallowed up by the other.
@matt
I can see why it might seem that way to you. But I know some of these Lib Dem MPs, and they are decent people, who sincerely care about the underprivileged.
I think any government would appear to be right wing when tackling a £100bn structural deficit. When I imagine the public reaction if Labour had won, and had had to make their cuts, I think Labour are very lucky they didn’t win.
This is one of the worst possible scenarios for the Lib Dems to be in a coalition, but it’s not the worst possible scenario. When imagining a Lib Dem/Lab coalition, I shudder. We’d have shared the blame for creating the mess, and our identity would have been under far more threat than it is with the Tories. And when I remember that Labour pushed through regressive measures while enjoying booming tax revenues, I think they too would have pushed regressive cuts to welfare in preference to hitting the middle class.
Because we’re having to make such deep cuts, of course those who disagree think we’ve become Tories. And of course, because I believe the cuts are necessary, I don’t think the same and can empathise with our ministers.
Over the years, my biggest gripe with the party is that we didn’t think enough about hard choices. At present, leaving aside the car-crash of tuition fees and the regressive stuff the Tories are pushing through in welfare, I’m actually extremely proud of the parliamentary party.
Having been a member of the Lib Dems for a long time, I know how different we are to the Tories. The moves towards Lib Dem/Labour cooperation in 1997 were a much more serious threat to our identity than this coalition. So I don’t feel our identity is really under threat. But I agree that there is a problem with our public identity.
@George Kendall: It would be nice to have NIESR and OBR figures for both the Labour party’s plans and the Tories’ current plans- I did have to compare two predictions from different times, so it could easily be different. It does show that Labour’s plans weren’t bringing us to the edge of disaster though if there are estimates that put them ahead of the Tories/Coalition for deficit reduction.
The NIESR predicted, rather than the cuts having to be deeper, that Osborne would have to make further tax rises if he wanted to meet his goal- I think he would do it, as the Tories love to do, through regressive indirect taxes if at all. I think the deficit should be dealt with more with tax rises anyway, but progressive ones. It quite clearly says that the cuts will harm growth enough to harm deficit reduction. And even if it didn’t- some of these cuts are obscene. The cuts to local councils is one that I’m especially concerned about- not because of any economic training or anything I admit, but because when Thatcher did similarly it left the severely disabled with less vists per day, leaving them sitting in their own filth over night. For me, that’s not on. The coalition is intent not only on impoverishing the poor, but on taking their dignity. Labour won;t have been much better, sure. Labour is hardly the ideal party- they aren’t socialists, they don’t want to democratise the economic sphere any more than you do. But they would have been a little better, and the people I know wouldn’t have suffered quite as much as they have because some bankers couldn’t do their sums. Or they could do their sums and figured it would be better for them to screw over the poor for their own gain.
As for that comment, it could have been accidentally deleted, first off. This site has tended to be very fair in the past when I know I’ve made comments that are on the edge of being off topic, and they’ve been allowed to stay. More fair than ConservativeHome. More fair often than LabourHome. It’s one of the reasons I haven’t just stopped posting here, the mods haven’t struck me as unfair ever. I’ve never been censored or anything despite all the anti-Lib Dem stuff I’ve come out with. To be honest, I’m not even anti-Lib Dem- I had respect for them before th election. Among my friends whenever Chris Huhne comes up he’s tagged as ‘Mike’s friend’ because I used to be the one calling for a ‘progressive’ alliance with the Lib Dems against the lot in Labour who just don’t care for civil liberties. My nan voted Lib Dem, my mother did the same. My mam’s come back to Labour of course but it breaks my heart to see my nan say ‘they’re all the same’ after your lot jumped in with the Tories. They’ve both said they feel sick to their stomach having voted Lib Dem and it breaks my heart to think my nan has just given up on it all. I’d rather her be Lib Dem than have lost hope in the democratic process, but here we are. She hasn’t come back to Labour. She loved Attlee and Bevan and Cripps and she’s right that the modern Labour party doesn’t hold a candle to the old giants. But it’s still our party, it’s the party of the working class, and there are a minority within that party that know it. The Lib Dems at their best offer charity- it’s well known that Simon Hughes, in my mind the best of the Lib Dems, hates unionism and the working class. At its best the Lib Dems offer charity- Labour at its best offers solidarity. Labour at its best offers dignity.
Anyway, I’m far too drunk to make any coherent statements. I’ll post when I’m sober. But mods- I come to this site because it’s more fair than most. Not because I’m a troll or a saboteur. I don’t want the Lib Dems to disappear because you’ll all just go to the Tories and they’re even worse to the poor. I like the Lib Dems (in a way) I just think you’re leadership have betrayed you. I was betrayed by Blair, you shouldn’t let it happen to yourselves. Because Clegg and Cable and Huhne (who I used to like) and Laws and Alexander- they’re your Blair. They pretended to agree with you and then used the coalition discussions to secretly betray you. At least Blair was, belatedly (he pretended to be a Marxist for a bit!) open about his hatred of the Left, its civil liberties and its socialism.
Finally, and I might have made a fool of myself posting as drunk as I am, I understand your criticisms of the Labour party and for many of them I agree (and I will often say I agree.). But it’s Labour. It has its history and its people. When Blair’s as dead as the innocent Iraqis and soldiers he sent to the butcher’s it will still be Bevan’s party, the party of the Red Flag and of economic democracy, whose members (against the official line I know) stood against Mosley.
As for the income tax, I appreciate the way it’s been done as to exclude the very richest from the benefits and save that money. But it’s still regressive between the middle and the poor, which is damaging anyway. The poorest may get a little but the middle get more and that money could be better spent, in my view, making sure the severely disabled don’t have to spend the nights of their twilight years sitting in their own excrement.
(Can’t help but feel this post will embarass me in the morning! Any types blame on the drink, not on poor old me)
@George Kendall: It doesn’t say that it excludes capital spending- it’s not Fraser Nelson’s figures anyway, it’s the OBR’s. I just quoted him because I’ve been attacked in the past on this site for quoting people whose political affiliations were unknown (so therefore they must be ‘Labour hacks’). I went with Fraser Nelson because he’s well known as a Coalition/Tory supporter- the article I quoted was in defence of the cuts, he just realised they weren’t necessary to deal with the deficit but he still wanted them. It was the most pro-you lot I could find on the subject so as to avoid being attacked for using left-wing sources or whatever.
I don’t disagree with the need to deal with the deficit and with borrowing. My ideal would be the Digger’s ideal- the working class make their own society, poor but free and democratic. We’ll look after our own. But the argument is that the government’s method of getting the deficit down isn’t as effective or as fair as Labour’s was (and Labour’s could be improved I know). When the deficit is the go-to reason for cutting as deep as you are it must be troubling for a think-tank like the NIESR to say that the cuts will harm deficit reduction by reducing tax revenues and increasing unemployment. Sadly enough very few newspapers care for that narrative. For your papers cuts are an end in themselves.
@George
“This is one of the worst possible scenarios for the Lib Dems to be in a coalition, but it’s not the worst possible scenario. When imagining a Lib Dem/Lab coalition, I shudder. We’d have shared the blame for creating the mess, and our identity would have been under far more threat than it is with the Tories”
That worries me even more to be honest.
I think everyone know’s that if we were to switch to the AV system.
Hung parliaments are much more likely, meaning coalition governments.
If Liberal Democrats, fear of losing their identity in a Labour coalition Government, So instead lean towards the Conservatives for coalition, That’s a prospect that scares the crap out of me, and will stop me voting in favour of AV
That does not really strike me as being liberal democracy, if a Liberal Party fails to act on the will of the Majority.
I wan’t to know that a party would do what is right for the country, not what they think is right for the party to keep an identity.
If Liberals Policy are much more closer to that of the Labour Parties, Than that’s who they should go into coalition with.
If Liberal Democrats Polices and The Tories Polices are Poles apart from each other, Then instead of compromising on the parties principles, beliefs and policies, they should Give the Conservatives a confidence and supply agreement, in return for concessions of getting some of it’s own policies through.
That to me makes far more sense that to be fully supporting polices that
A) the party does not agree with
or
B) Having Liberal Policies that have been so stripped back and altered, that they do not resemble Liberal Policies at all
@Mike(The Labour one)
I really enjoyed your two last comments, and I thought they were very coherent. I don’t normally endorse heavy drinking, but maybe I’ll make an exception in this case. 😉
“It would be nice to have NIESR and OBR figures for both the Labour party’s plans and the Tories’ current plans- I did have to compare two predictions from different times, so it could easily be different”
Don’t have the NIESR figures, but I do have the OBR figures.
On reflection, Fraser Nelson must have been quoting the Cyclically-adjusted net borrowing (the portion of borrowing that will not disappear with economic growth).
Look at the OBR pre-budget report:
http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/d/pre_budget_forecast_140610.pdf (Table 4.1: Fiscal forecast overview)
Cyclically-adjusted net borrowing
2010-11 8.0%
2014-15 2.8%
After the budget:
http://budgetresponsibility.independent.gov.uk/d/junebudget_annexc.pdf (Table C1: Fiscal forecast overview)
Cyclically-adjusted net borrowing
2010-11 7.4%
2014-15 0.8%
So, using the figures Fraser Nelson was using, the coalition plans will reduce the deficit in 2014-15 by about 2 per cent of GDP.
“NIESR predicted … that Osborne would have to make further tax rises if he wanted to meet his goal- I think he would do it, as the Tories love to do, through regressive indirect taxes if at all.”
NIESR believe that Osborne will have to change his plan, not because the cuts will reduce growth by more than expected, but because house prices are still overvalued, and, if they fall, that will hit growth, and because he’ll find it harder to make the cuts than he expected. NIESR say indirect taxes like VAT risk increasing inflation, so they suggest direct taxes like income tax.
“It quite clearly says that the cuts will harm growth enough to harm deficit reduction”
If that’s a quote from the http://www.politics.co.uk/news/economy-and-finance/backfiring-cuts-might-slow-deficit-reduction–$21384971.htm article. Sorry, but that article is just terrible journalism. Listen to the NIESR press conference and you’ll see that NIESR say no such thing, or read the following article: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE69I6JF20101019
What the Reuter’s article quotes is accurate, though it does completely miss out all the things that NIESR said in favour of coalition policy.
“I think the deficit should be dealt with more with tax rises anyway, but progressive ones”
I’d agree, as does NIESR. NIESR’s Ray Barrell suggests this may happen anyway, but he also says that Osborne’s current strategy is the right one. That Osborne has to ask for more than he expects to get. If he asks for 25% cuts, he might get 15%. If he asked for 15%, he might only get 9%.
I’m sure the Lib Dems in government would like progressive tax rises, but it’ll be incredibly hard to get the Tories to swallow that. And don’t forget, Labour too made a promise not to raise income tax, and Gordon Brown cut income tax by 2 pence.
However, I think tax rises could only go so far. A penny on income tax might raise £4.4bn. If we wanted to reduce the cuts by 2% of GDP, about £27bn, that’d mean 6p added to income tax. That’d be political suicide, as Alan Johnson will find out when he tries to present an alternative to the coalition cuts programme.
I also think raising taxes too high is undesirable. I don’t think the country can afford to let the public sector get too large. If it does, the tax burden on the part of the private sector that pays our way in the world will be unsustainable, and we’ll end up with another bust. And I hate busts.
“some of these cuts are obscene”
I’d agree. In fact, reading your comment, I’m struck at how much I agree with you.
But, while the Tories are partly to blame, I’m really angry with Brown. He massively overspent on the basis of the temporary revenue from a housing and debt boom. Lots of that went on spending that is politically or contractually very difficult to reverse: on the NHS and on public service salaries.
Because the NHS is ring-fenced (I dearly wish it wasn’t), the cuts are falling elsewhere. The cuts I hate the most are to benefits and to local authority social services. I think it’s obscene that health provision via the NHS will be protected, but health provision via social services won’t be.
But, aside from the Tories and Labour, I’m afraid there’s a depressing fact. Opinion polls show that the electorate want cuts to overseas aid and welfare. They want to protect the NHS and education, but they don’t mention social services. They want to tax the rich, but they definitely don’t want to pay more tax themselves.
I know you’re angry with the Lib Dems and it’s entirely understandable. But I’m not. When I try to imagine what I’d have done in their situation, I don’t see any alternative. I genuinely believe that any other option than the coalition would have meant a second election last month, and a Tory majority with populist rightwingers driving the agenda. As to how we’ve used our influence to moderate the Tories… of course, I can only guess. But, considering our poll rating and having only 57 MPs, I don’t think Clegg’s negotiating position is as strong as his critics on this site claim.
“the people I know wouldn’t have suffered quite as much as they have because some bankers couldn’t do their sums”
I disagree. The recession was caused by the bankers, so the cyclic deficit was caused by the bankers. But the structural deficit was caused by overspending. If you’re interested, I covered this in a lot more detail in https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-we-shouldnt-blame-the-banks-21659.html
Oh dear! Another massive opus of a comment. But as most people have moved on from the thread, hopefully no one really minds.
@matt
“If Liberal Democrats, fear of losing their identity in a Labour coalition Government, So instead lean towards the Conservatives for coalition”
Don’t worry. It’s no longer an issue.
After the coalition with the Tories, most Lib Dems will be very keen on a Lib Dem/Labour coalition, in order to preserve our identity.
And AV will also force Tory MPs to become more moderate, because they’ll be bidding with Labour for Lib Dem second preferences. This is why the hard right of the Tory party absolutely *hate* AV.
“I want to know that a party would do what is right for the country, not what they think is right for the party to keep an identity”
Both apply. This is true for any party. Parties think it is in the country’s long term interest for them to survive. And isn’t that fair enough?
“If Liberals Policy are much more closer to that of the Labour Parties, Than that’s who they should go into coalition with.”
In reality, unless the other parties are almost identical in terms of seats, or unless the Lib Dems make a increase in seats, it’s likely that the best way to get stable government is to go with the larger party.
In the unusual situation where the Lib Dems could genuinely go with either party, our negotiating position would be far, far stronger than it currently is.
“they should Give the Conservatives a confidence and supply agreement, in return for concessions of getting some of it’s own policies through”
Two problems with that:
– that’s a recipe for the Tories to run a short-term government with a view to a second election. They’d introduce populist bills, like on immigration, in the hope that we’d vote them down. By the bills they put through, they’d set the agenda to be everything that was unhelpful to us.
– Meanwhile, they’d use the discretionary powers of government ministers to do all sorts of regressive things, without the need legislation. In coalition we’re closely involved enough to try to stop that sort of nastiness. And a lot of it will be stuff that’s completely unreported in the press.