Following the embarrassment of losing 695 English councillors, 11 Scottish parliament seats, 1 Welsh assembly seat and a resounding 68% of the country voting against the AV referendum, the time has now come for Nick Clegg and his party to leave their unpopular coalition with the Conservatives. The British public have retaliated against Nick Clegg in a monumental fashion, begging the question, has it been worth Clegg’s efforts getting the Liberal Democrats to Downing Street?
Nick Clegg has faced an uphill battle since joining forces with David Cameron’s Tories last May. Following his meteoric rise after the televised leader’s debates, the Lib Dems were propelled into the limelight for the first time. After gaining 23% of the electorate’s vote – and despite somewhat surprisingly losing 5 seats – the Liberal Democrats became an important player in the world of British politics. Then followed the choice. Should they form a two-party government with the Conservatives or try and create a multi-party coalition with Labour and the nationalist parties? The rest, as they say, is history.
Having opted for the more difficult pathway, trouble was always going to ensue. Radical party members saw the move as deplorable, shameful and embarrassing. Moderate liberals, whilst still uncertain, gave Clegg the benefit of the doubt, choosing to support their leader’s judgement. The BBC’s Politics Show asserted that an impressive 75% of the Liberal Democrat manifesto was being enacted – compared with 60% of the Conservative manifesto. However, they failed to state that on key issues, such as tuition fees and VAT, the Lib Dems had made serious concessions that have damaged their reputation.
A quarter of the nation voted Lib Dem for one simple reason. They wanted an alternative. They yearned for something different. Something the ‘big two’ could never offer. And this is why there has been a massive backlash against the party. Voters who put their faith in ‘Cleggmania’ have received the exact opposite to this. In the last year, Britain has seen huge austerity measures sanctioned. Massive public spending cuts – £6billion to be precise – have left thousands hard-up and worse-off. Students must now pay three times as much for higher education, public sector workers face wide scale job losses and the banks – deemed to have caused the recession – have been treated leniently.
The “new government, new kind of government” that Clegg spoke of has hardly materialised. Instead, talk of a new ‘Thatcherism’ has arisen. To make matters worse, the coalition’s junior partners have been treated as a “human shield” for the Tories to hide behind. Any right-minded individual tuning in to watch Question Time or Daily Politics would be forgiven for thinking that the Lib Dems were running a majority government. Liberal MPs have continually been attacked on-air for Tory policies whilst Conservative MPs blur into the background unnoticed.
Senior Lib Dems, such as Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander and Deputy Leader Simon Hughes, have dutifully condoned coalition policy. This has been in direct conflict with the views of Energy and Climate Secretary Chris Huhne and Business Secretary Vince Cable who have publicly condemned some of the coalition’s endeavours. When this is the case, you have a problem. With the party’s loyalties divided and key members contradicting one another, the Lib Dems have begun to look like a bit of a shambles. Action must be taken.
Scott’s piece continues tomorrow.
Scott Hill is an independent journalist.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Another myth that should die: The Victorians covered table legs because they thought were indecent
Graphics and AV tools for solo consultants
Weekly Road Report - West End Ward #dundeewestend
Mick Taylor
Alex Macfie
Barry Smith
Steve Trevethan
Tim Rogers
57 Comments
You’re joking, right? Leaving now would confirm everything bad about our party, about how we are useless and unable to govern, and we’d rightly be the laughing stock of the nation, handing power either to the Tory right or a policy-less, head-in-the sand Labour party. No thank you.
What rubbish – there was no ‘other option’ – a coalition with Labour, the SNP and Plaid, as suggested in this column, would not have commanded a workable Parliamentary majority, and in any case would have required even more complicated and difficult negotiations. Given that the Labour Party’s share of the vote, and seats, declined significantly, the Liberal Democrats would forever have been tarred as propping up a defeated government.
Abandoning the government will cripple the country, and the party. What a sure-fire way to make the party look like a petulant, sulking rabble. Please, don’t continue this piece.
I look forward to reading the next part but I do think there are some mistakes in this article.
The mathematics were against a “progressive” coalition on the left of centre. It was Labour after all who insisted on excluding the SNP, which made it impossible. The other alternative, “confidence and supply” would have left the Tories in a position where they could call an election anytime they wanted, and with more money than anyone else they probably would have got an overall majority. The Lib Dems had no choice.
The author also seems to be uncertain about the numbers involved. £6Billion is not a large amount compared to what is about to happen over the next few years. Cuts from the Labour party had they been in office would easily exceeded that, albeit over a different time scale.
For those outside looking in and who think the Lib Dems are not being reasonable in what they have so far been able to deliver within this coalition, I would ask what you would suggest how the Lib Dems can use their leverage in government to deliver more on their own agenda.
“The other alternative, “confidence and supply” would have left the Tories in a position where they could call an election anytime they wanted, and with more money than anyone else they probably would have got an overall majority. The Lib Dems had no choice.”
The Tories could have called an election, although if they hadn’t at least made some attempt to run a minority government the electorate might well punish them for it. While money does play a role, labour with a new leader and the better economic news over the summer might not have been easy pickings. I would argue it was more about 50-50 whether the tories would have won a majority. It would have been a hard election for us, but not impossible. We did have a choice.
@Geoffrey Payne. “The other alternative, “confidence and supply” would have left the Tories in a position where they could call an election anytime they wanted, and with more money than anyone else they probably would have got an overall majority.”
The ‘no choice’ because the Tories would have won an eary election argument is analysis which comforts the Lib Dems but which doesn’t hold true. It’s not inevitable the Tories would have won as you yourself point out with the use of ‘probably’. The Tories had an open goal with Gordon Brown’s unpopularity and the economic mess but still they failed to win; it was clear that the Conservatives did not have a mandate from the majority of the public. My crystal ball forecast a different scenario whereby the electorate would have had to make the decision as to whether they wanted a Tory government or not; given such a choice they would have recognised it as astraight Labour-Tory shoot out. The Lib Dems would have been squeezed with left-centre voters backing Labour as a lesser of two evils.
Who know’s who’s crystal ball would be right – it’s purely conjecture – but the Lib Dem fear of an early election scenario was more to do with self preservation than self sacrifice to save the country from a Tory government. There was a choice but the party was too scared to take it.
@John
beat me to it!
“Should they form a two-party government with the Conservatives or try and create a multi-party coalition with Labour and the nationalist parties? The rest, as they say, is history.
Having opted for the more difficult pathway ….”
As Geoffrey points out the article seems to demonstrate some lack of understanding of the parliamentary arithmetic.
Surely Scott realises that “a multi-party coalition with Labour and the nationalist parties” would not merely have been a more difficult pathway, but impossible.
Also the suggestion that on VAT the Lib Dems have made “serious concessions that have damaged their reputation” is surely wrong.
One of the things that we should be most proud of is to have supported a (modest) shift of taxation onto expenditure and away from income. As the IFS have said, the increase in VAT was “mildly progressive”; most certainly taking hundreds of thousands of low earners out of income tax completely was progressive.
“Radical party members saw the move as deplorable, shameful and embarrassing” there musn’t have been many of these people at the special conference where it was a massively overwhelming vote for coalition. I wish the cameras had been allowed in – it would have been very powerful.
@muxlow So what you are saying is that Lib Dems should have assumed that it would have been in the interests of the country that a) their vote would collapse in a second general election and b) it would go to the Labour party.
Actually Liberal Democrats at that moment in time did not want their vote to collapse and if it did much of it would have gone to the Tories. A second general election 4 months after the May one would have seen both the Lib Dems and Labour with no funds to contest it. Contesting a general election with no money is a bad idea, particularly in competition with the Tories who can call upon their rich chums in the City. Believe me we spent ages looking at all the options and we were left with one. However I am personally no cheerleader of the coalition, far from it.
“Having opted for the more difficult pathway, trouble was always going to ensue.”
Whilst the second half of this statement is correct why is the only choice that worked mathematically the more difficult one ? It was the only realistic choice….
The problem is not the fact of the coalition, the problem is the manner it has been carried out. As for the human shield element it is true the Tories are deliberately pushing Lib dem Ministers forward with unpopular policies to hurt them. It is not really a shield though, Tory supporters will not blame them for being Tories. It is a way of knocking the Lib Dems knowing they will benefit in part from the demise…
@geoffrey
Having read many of your comments I know you are not. I’m merely pointing out that a) there were alternatives and the ‘no choice’ argument neither holds water or gains public sympathy and b) it seems the decision to avoid an early election was about self preservation – this is the party’s prerogative and a legitimate choice – but shouldn’t be dressed up as saving the country from an inevitable Tory majority which the anti-Tory public should be grateful for. Whilst I do believe the LD vote would have been squeezed again I don’t believe this to be inevitable and on the contrary-despite shortened funds- the focusing of minds may actually have been an opportunity for the Lib Dems (perhaps unlikely but nevertheless possible)
@simon shaw
“Also the suggestion that on VAT the Lib Dems have made “serious concessions that have damaged their reputation” is surely wrong.”
Not being an economist I can’t comment with absolute confidence on your claims about VAT although it certainly goes against my own progressive instincts but what I can be confident about is that on this issue of reputation you actually are wrong. As far as the public is concerned your reputation over VAT and tuitions fees most definitely has been damaged. Whether this is fair or not you may be able to argue but you can’t deny the damage to the party’s reputation; to do so is just putting your head in the sand.
Since the spectacular slaughter at the local elections, I have to admit, I’m genuinely in turmoil at our position in the coalition.
We are being slaughtered by the press and the public, and as a result it has made me anti the coalition ever existing. Especially when News Corp continue to bathe the Tories in golden light.
But I do agree with Andrea too, we would be slaughtered if we left.
Hence my turmoil.
How do we change this? Do we reshuffle our ministers after the summer? Do we try different tacts? I have to admit, the Conservatives now pushing through a Trident replacement, and the essentially platitudinous rubbish our ministers are speaking about the NHS have not eased my unhappiness one bit. I feel like I’m being bullied in the playground, and there are no teachers to report it to.
It doesnt stop me being a Liberal Democrat, which is an ideology I identify with, but I am disappointed and despairing at the way forward.
Uh, source? As far as I can see, the coalition is at least nominally popular with a majority of the country, compared to Labour. Basically the country wants any government that doesn’t have Labour in it.
@muxloe
“what I can be confident about is that on this issue of reputation you actually are wrong. As far as the public is concerned your reputation over VAT …. most definitely has been damaged.”
I would be interested to know on what you base that. I completely agree with you over tuition fees, but on VAT ???
All I can say is that in extensive doorstep canvassing over the last 6 weeks not a single person raised the issue of VAT, and certainly didn’t suggest that our reputation had been damaged over it in any way. Also, as far as I am aware, not a single one of my colleagues canvassing in Southport encountered any damaged reputation problems over VAT.
So what causes you to say: “As far as the public is concerned your reputation over VAT …. most definitely has been damaged.” ?
@muxloe
” Who know’s who’s crystal ball would be right – it’s purely conjecture – but the Lib Dem fear of an early election scenario was more to do with self preservation than self sacrifice to save the country from a Tory government. There was a choice but the party was too scared to take it.i>
I think you are seriously wrong on that as well.
The issue was not one of saving the country from a Tory government, it was that of saving it from a minority Tory government.
Such a government would have likely driven the country into a worse financial mess than even Gordon Brown managed, as the issue would not have been doing what was economically right for the country, as the Coalition Government is seeking to do.
It would have been the minority Tory government doing whatever it felt was most likely to win it an overall majority within the next 12 months or so.
@simon shaw
the original point that I was responding to (made by geoffrey payne) was that there would likely have been an early election resulting in a Tory majority – your argument over saving the country from a minority Tory government is a differnet argument. I was saying that there was a choice – it might not have been a particularly palatable one but nevertheless there WAS a choice.
As to the question of VAT we’re just throwing anecdotal evidence at each other….neither of which is conclusive but as you’ve asked… I dispute your claim that the VAT issue hasn’t damaged the party’s reputation on the basis that as an ex Lib Dem worker many erstwhile party voters have discussed their disappointment with the Lib Dems with me as if I am personally accountable. VAT has been mentioned on numerous occassions and it is undoubtedly the case that the party’s reputation has suffered. Where I do agree with you is that its not usually top of people’s list but then thats more of an indictment of other decisions rather than an endorsement of the VAT rise.
So what causes you to say: “As far as the public is concerned your reputation over VAT …. most definitely has been damaged.” ?
Well this didn’t help…
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2010/04/08/article-1264531-090C4EBB000005DC-86_468x286_popup.jpg
“Basically the country wants any government that doesn’t have Labour in it.”
Andrew Suffield. Says who? Tonight’s YouGov poll for ‘The Sunday Times’ suggests that it’s the Lib Dems that people don’t want in government:-
LAB 42%, CON 37%, LIB DEMS 8%.
muxloe
“an ex Lib Dem worker many erstwhile party voters have discussed their disappointment with the Lib Dems with me as if I am personally accountable.”
Two comments/questions:
1. If you are “an ex Lib Dem worker”, is there any particular reason why you are posting anonymously?
2. As an “ex Lib Dem worker”, I assume that means that you have done no canvassing for the Lib Dems over the last 6 to 8 weeks. Can you therefore suggest any explanation why “many erstwhile party voters” have decided to discuss their disappointment over VAT with you “on numerous occasions” when you have done no canvassing, yet not a single one of the few hundred residents I have personally canvassed has mentioned it? It just seems a little strange.
@Simon Shaw
I can assure you that I am an ex worker of the Lib Dems. Why do you seek to doubt this? – your posts seem unnecessarily mean spirited and personal. I don’t need to account for myself to you but now that you’ve questioned my integrity I shall the record straight. In fact I worked (extremely hard) for the party in Westminster for 5 years and in particular I was a researcher for a very high profile Lib Dem MP – I now work as a teacher. It is precisely because the MP in question is high profile that I post anonymously as I have tremendous respect for the person and do not want our association to be the source of any embarrassment or difficulties for them. This is a difficult stance to maintain on LDV with continued provacation that anyone who holds a contrary point of view must by definition be a Labour troll.
I don’t see what is strange about people discussing their disappointment with me? As I said I am a teacher – I think you’ll find that there are many public sector workers including teachers who voted Lib Dem who now hold regrets and, as I originally stated, the fact that I worked for the Lib Dems is well known and so I have heard their ire on many occassions. This also holds true for a whole host of friends, friends of friends and associates. VAT has been mentioned numerous times.
Finally – you are right I haven’t canvassed recently. I think it is pretty clear that I don’t currently feel that I could honestly promote the party.
Is there anythig else you need me to account for? I was under the opinion that alternative opinion is allowed on Lib Dem Voice.
Simon Shaw..
Why would you think that because a few hundred people you spoke to in your location failed to mention VAT , you would consider that in any way to be evidence of anything other than the fact that nobody mentioned it to you ?
The fact is that there are a multitude of reasons why people currently won’t vote Lib Dem. I was unhappy about the VAT decision but there have been many other things since that have also made me unhappy. If you knocked my door then I doubt I would mention VAT. My list of complaints would be so long that I doubt that we would get round to VAT.
That of course is a completely different question to whether I think the VAT rise has damaged our reputation.
I also would not mention Tuition fees., although I am unhappy about them. My kids are all grown up and educated, so the fees won’t directly affect my family. So it is not high on my personal list of priorities.
That of course is a completely different question to whether I think the rise in tuition fees has damaged our reputation.
You can’t make sweeping generalisations about what the public thinks as a whole based on very limited canvassing.
I have no doubt that you can spot many a correlation (such as ‘people don’t talk to me about VAT’) but that does not imply causation…
You are conforming to a stereotypical non sequitur..
Given this piece is so full of holes I can’t say I’m looking forward to the sequel tomorrow…
@Barry George
“Why would you think that because a few hundred people you spoke to in your location failed to mention VAT , you would consider that in any way to be evidence of anything other than the fact that nobody mentioned it to you ?”
Barry, I was querying the view expressed by muxloe who said: “As far as the public is concerned your reputation over VAT …. most definitely has been damaged.”
I was saying I was unaware of any evidence that that assertion was true. That is distinct to the issue of tuition fees, where I very much had personal evidence on the doorstep of damage to our reputation.
Are you claiming that there is evidence that our reputation has been damaged over VAT?
All that you say is that you personally were “unhappy about the VAT decision”. Why is that exactly?
As I said above, one of the things that we should be most proud of is to have supported a (modest) shift of taxation onto expenditure and away from income. As the IFS have said, the increase in VAT was “mildly progressive”; most certainly taking hundreds of thousands of low earners out of income tax completely was progressive.
Are you saying you support a more regressive system of taxation?
Simon Shaw
Are you claiming that there is evidence that our reputation has been damaged over VAT?
In a word .. ‘ yes’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/27/lib-dems-vat-rise-anger-poll
Or to give you a quote
A YouGov/Brand Democracy survey, which will alarm already restive Lib Dem MPs, shows 48% of those who voted Lib Dem at the election are now less inclined to back them again as a direct result of the increase in VAT from 17.5% to 20%
I am not suggesting that the evidence is correct or false… You merely asked if there was evidence (beyond your own conversations with the voters) and clearly there is…
All that you say is that you personally were “unhappy about the VAT decision”. Why is that exactly?
Because to me, it felt like betrayal. , I believed the posters (see my link above) and I was naive enough to think that the people standing in front of the ‘Tory Bombshell’ poster were actually implying that they were themselves against any such bombshell.
How naive I was…
Are you saying you support a more regressive system of taxation?
Could you make the question anymore loaded ? 🙂
That is an entirely different debate that implies in its question that a VAT rise is (as a matter of fact) ‘progressive’ and that if I do not support your self-defined ‘progressive’ tax rise then I must therefore be in favour of more regressive taxation.
In short, yet another non sequitur from you, which is not worthy of a reply …
@muxloe
“As I said I am a teacher – I think you’ll find that there are many public sector workers including teachers who voted Lib Dem who now hold regrets and, as I originally stated, the fact that I worked for the Lib Dems is well known and so I have heard their ire on many occassions. This also holds true for a whole host of friends, friends of friends and associates. VAT has been mentioned numerous times.”
That’s interesting. If you are saying that some (or many) of the teachers you now work with have raised the VAT increase as a reason why they feel the Lib Dem reputation is damaged, have you considered that may be because the VAT increase is progressive?
That means that it hits higher earners proportionately more than low earners.
Most teachers are within the highest-earning quartile in society, and as such the increase in VAT affects them slightly more than average. Conversely the key Lib Dem policy achievement of the significant increase in personal allowances is progressive and benefits low earners far more than teachers and other comparatively well paid workers.
I would have hoped you would have put those points to your (reasonably) affluent colleagues. That’s always assuming you support a more progressive taxation system (I hope you do).
Others have spelt out the detail, I will just echo the sentiment of those who’ve pointed out that this is a deeply weak argument shot through with factual and analytical inaccuracies.
Oh, and to the chap who gave the YouGov polling numbers… those numbers show yet again that the Coalition (i.e. the sum of its parts) remains more popular than Labour. The opposition seriously needs to look at itself in the mirror. Nick Clegg may have some poor numbers, but Miliband’s are no better, and he doesn’t have the excuse of having to implement necessary but hardly popularity-inducing policies.
Labour need to start landing punches on the Tories; sadly – for us and for them – they have preferred instead to indulge in their stalker-like obsession with the Lib Dems.
Barry George
“That is an entirely different debate that implies in its question that a VAT rise is (as a matter of fact) ‘progressive’ and that if I do not support your self-defined ‘progressive’ tax rise then I must therefore be in favour of more regressive taxation.”
It is not “self-defined” as progressive. That is what the independent IFS said it was.
In fact, you may recall that I made that clear on my very first posting on this thread, when I said: “As the IFS have said, the increase in VAT was “mildly progressive” ”
Are you someone who only accepts the views of the IFS when it suits you? (Does that count as a loaded question?)
Simon Shaw..
I see you managed to skim over the presented and requested evidence and decided to ignore it…
Are you someone who only accepts the views of the IFS when it suits you?
I have never claimed that I do (or don’t) accept the views of the IFS. Why do you think I believe that the view of the IFS is crucial to my argument? (maybe you could answer a question rather than simply pose them)
The debate as to whether VAT is progressive or regressive is complex
To quote from the BBC
However, when economists consider how “progressive” or “regressive” a tax is, they typically look at the distribution of the tax burden based on household income, not household spending.
This is exactly what the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) did last year to coincide with Mr Osborne’s emergency budget.
And the data here tells exactly the opposite story: those at the bottom of the income scale – particularly the bottom 10% – would be hurt much more by the VAT rise than those at the top.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12111507
Personally I come to conclusions based on a wider range of information than is provided by just the IFS.
But you are doing well… Whether VAT is progressive or regressive is not the point you raised. So I will assume you are trying to divert the discussion to a place of no relevance.
You asked Are you claiming that there is evidence that our reputation has been damaged over VAT?
And I provided you with evidence.. So you ignore that evidence and start a new debate on whether the IFS said VAT is progressive !
Please tell me what on earth the answer to the progressive/regressive VAT question has to do with the fact that you were disputing whether the VAT rise had a negative effect on the party ?
By your sudden change of topic, shall I assume that you now accept that there is evidence to suggest that the VAT rise had negative effect on the reputation of the party ? (Which was after all your question)
An excellent piece – hits several nails on the head.
“Stuart
Oh, and to the chap who gave the YouGov polling numbers… those numbers show yet again that the Coalition (i.e. the sum of its parts) remains more popular than Labour. The opposition seriously needs to look at itself in the mirror. Nick Clegg may have some poor numbers, but Miliband’s are no better, and he doesn’t have the excuse of having to implement necessary but hardly popularity-inducing policies.”
I find attitudes like this on Liberal Democrat Voice disquieting. The Liberal Democrat vote has declined massively since the election. A fall from 23% to 8% is appalling. Those figures would decimate the LDs MP count at a General Election. The only thing preventing a fall into single figures would be that in some constituencies that the only opposition to the Conservatives are the LDs.
Have a look on the BBC electoral map.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/default.stm
(I hope this comes up a link, apologies if it doesn’t. It’s a great interactive map and gives a good reminder and reference of the previous general election position)
In Scotland, if the local election results were replicated with a majority of the votes going to the SNP, you could see all the LD MPs going.
Without any changes in direction, the LD vote due would likely be around 11 to 12% due to the lack of opposition. Stuart, these figures are not to be proud of.
You also assume of those 8% are a tacit agreement of the coaltion. I will be generous and knock out 25% (2%) of that, so actually 6% of your voters agree with the coalition.
The complacency of the opinion interms of the future of the Liberal Democrats (if you are a Liberal Democrat supporter) is staggering.
Muxloe has argued the point very well over the fact that there was an alternative to going in coalition with the Conservatives (I won’t repeat the point). There is no specific reason why the Liberal Democrat vote would have been squeezed if the LDs had followed their manifesto commitments. The Conservative vote is around 35% and with clearer explanation of their policies, is unlikely to go any higher.
Fighting an election on a low budget being touted as for reason for the Coalition agreement is very weak, and also seems a little self serving. If the Conservatives had been honest about their position (and the LDS) then at least it would have been a democratically mandated position.
Admittedly the LDs are in a difficult position but doing nothing, is not an option. I think if the LDs make a principled stand on something like stopping the NHS and opposing Conservative ideology than the electorate will forgive the LDs and the party base will be sustained.
Everybody makes mistakes or can be misguided, people and the electorate understand that. It is how you respond to mistakes that makes the difference. Not acknowledging them and blindly going on is definitely not going to help.
It is a good thing that Scott Hill is looking at the alternatives, on the current cours, there will be a waste of a generation’s hard work in building the lds and the end of an effective third party.
The Coalition agreement was actually good for the Liberal Democrats, unfortunately this government has been dominated by cuts which were not specified at the time although we knew they were going to be bad.
The Liberal Democrats are prevented from following all of their manifesto commitments by virtue of being 270 MPs short of a majority. If anything Labour were even less keen to agree to Lib Dem manifesto commitments than the Tories were at the time of the negotiations.
I think NHS and banking reforms give the Liberal Democrats an opportunity to show their metal and the pressure is on Nick Clegg to show that the Liberal Democrats have not cozied up to the Tories.
Commenting reminder: Please remember to respect our moderation policy which basically asks people to be polite, be on topic and be honest (ie don’t pretend to be more than one person or to be someone you are not).
As you can see from other comments published on the site, wide-ranging and robust debate is fine (including comments critical of the party or the site). However, we do ask for little bit of civility – and the chances are you’ll find that makes your points a little more effective at persuading others anyway!
We have the policy about off-topic comments so that people can choose to take part in the discussions which interest them, rather than finding the same discussions shoe-horned into threads on posts on a wide range of other topics.
If there’s a topic that is relevant to our site and hasn’t been covered in a post then raising it in a thread is fine. However, what goes too far – for example – is raising the same topic in several threads in quick succession.
More details are at https://www.libdemvoice.org/comment-policy which you can also get to via the reminder link which always appears next to the box for posting a new comment.
@Barry George
“And I provided you with evidence.. So you ignore that evidence and start a new debate on whether the IFS said VAT is progressive !”
.
1. I don’t think you did actually provide any evidence. You referred to an opinion poll conducted 11 months ago, some 6 months before the changes in VAT came in.
2. I didn’t start a “new debate” – I referred to the issue of what the IFS said about the increase in VAT being “mildly progressive” long before you produced your non-evidence.
3. The IFS have never said that VAT is progressive (because it isn’t). It is the increase in VAT which they said they considered to be “mildly progressive”, and which I referred to.
4. I am basically saying that, based on my own doorstep experiences, “tuition fees” is bad news for us, but “VAT” is a non-issue.
5. If anyone else has any evidence to support the assertion made by Scott Hill that on VAT the Lib Dems have made “serious concessions that have damaged their reputation” then I would be interested to hear it.
” I believed the posters (see my link above) and I was naive enough to think that the people standing in front of the ‘Tory Bombshell’ poster were actually implying that they were themselves against any such bombshell.”
Barry, You were right to believe the posters. You would still be right A one party Tory government was indeed planning to bring in a hidden VAT Bombshell (likely cutting the reduced rate on utilities) if it wanted to pay for its inheritance tax give-aways etc The 2 1/2 per cent rise we’ve had would have come in under any party government by now and is not a ‘bombshell’. Not even a hand grenade really.
It is true that people on the street do not mention VAT rise, with or without links to the Lib Dems. I also do not see any evidence that the poll quoted has legs.
@Andrew
“You’ll find that (at least last time I checked) the Tory and Lib Dem affiliated people (plus some others) largely support the government,”
Well not really, in the last YouGov poll, 2010 libdem voters disapprove of the coaliton by 21-64. Even those currently intending to vote libdem only approve of the coaliton by 43-40. I take your point about YouGov tending to show the most pessimistic view of libdem support, and I would normally use an average, but most other pollsters do not provide either the question or the breakdown, (at least that I can find). YouGov does so on a regular basis.
@Stuart
“Nick Clegg may have some poor numbers, but Miliband’s are no better”
Miliband’s numbers are indeed poor but not nearly as catastrophic as Cleggs currently are. From the same YouGov poll, Well/Badly – Cameron 47/48, Miliband 32/51, Clegg 21/73. Although they both have flaws, I think the public are being harsh on both.
” those at the bottom of the income scale – particularly the bottom 10% – would be hurt much more by the VAT rise than those at the top.”
Of course they will, EVEN IF THE EFFECT IN MONEY TERMS ON THEM IS LESS AND IN PERCENTAGE OF DISPOSABLE INCOME TERMS IS EVEN LOWER. Because, by definition, people in the bottom 10 percent struggle to get by. In many cases their income is already less than their outgoings. But, unless you take a communistic approach to ‘sharing the burden’ it is inevitable that the ‘net pain’ on the people at the bottom will be higher than on those at the top, even if the money effect on the poorer people is minimal. People at the top could take a considerable ‘money cut’ without getting much real ‘pain’ resulting from this. But NOBODY (certainly not Labour) is proposing this ‘communistic’ approach to distributing the burden of paying for the deficit/overspend.
My own income is below average and, until I bought a car towards the end of last year, the ONLY higher rate VAT I paid out on anything at all was the odd take-away meal. Besides that, the ONLY VAT I paid out at all was on the lower rate, on my gas and electricity bills. Rich people were paying lots of their income out on consuming goods/services with STANDARD RATE VAT on them, and would also pay lots more ‘extra’ VAT with the rise, compared to me. Putting up standard VAT gets much more money out of richer people than from poorer people.
In six weeks campaigning for the local elections, precisely ONE person among many hundreds raised the VAT issue with me – and he was a Labour activist!
Geoffrey Payne
The Liberal Democrats are prevented from following all of their manifesto commitments by virtue of being 270 MPs short of a majority.
This is a deliberate simplistic reading of how a Coalition government and a smaller party who hold the balance of power can or should operate. It is not that helpful for the LDs to consider and improve the position articulated by Scott Hill’s article.
It also misunderstands what the electorate wanted in delivering a hung parliament and not giving a mandate to the Conservatives. The electorate mandate given was to moderate the whole of the Conservatives, not just the bring UK out of Europe, bring back fox hunting and hanging brigade but also the Thatcherite privatise everything policies.
Cameron is happy to sideline the out of EC Conservatives because he knows that this makes them unelectable and I think that largely, the country thinks that the EC is a good thing and don’t share the traditional Conservative right wing of his party’s obsession.
Having received that mandate and then signing the country up to a coalition agreement that allowed Thatcherite cuts flew in the face of what the electorate wanted.
Responding to the concerns of the electorate and Liberal Democrat parties members is not shameful, it is sensible and respects the democratic process. My only concern is that Clegg and the Orange book Democratic leadership seem to really agree with Cameron’s free market policies in the main. I am not sure from reading these pages and the opinion I see and hear from Liberal Democrat members whether they agree with that.
That is probably the true difficulty in this situation.
I am still of the view that Liberal democrats are being used as canon fodder by the Tories.
The Tories played a blinder of a hand when it came to the coalition agreement and the appointing certain ministerial positions.
A well thought out plan, they knew by granting certain Liberal Democrat Ministerial Positions in departments which would most likely going to prove the most dangerous and difficulty for the party, it’s leadership and their reputation. Making them heads of departments, who would then be in charge of implementing policies (which where the total opposite to the parties own policy)
Vince Cable ( Business secretary) In charge of the Tuition Fee’s fiasco. The conservatives managed to destroy Vinces reputation in a matter of weeks
Chris Huhne (Energy & Climate) Renewing 8 new Nuclear power stations, which Liberal Democrats where against
Nick Clegg (Deputy Prime Minister and in charge of electoral reform) From day 1 the Tories have been effective in discrediting Nick Clegg, damaging his leadership, his party, and hopes of reform.
Danny Alexander (Treasury) implementing cuts and a deficit reduction plan which was not supported by your voters.
It should have been clear from the start, that THESE Positions, where going to be responsible for delivering the most controversial policies, which would cause immense amount of damage to the parties credibility and turn the public against them, which we are clearly seeing in the latest election results and polls.
Surly nobody can still deny that the conservatives did not have this all planned from the outset?
They knew they where going to need the support of the Libdems to form a government, So they planned it in such a way, where they could strengthen their own positions, whilst at the same time slowly tearing apart the Liberal Democrats party and their supporters, In the hope that when the time is right, Cameron would call another election and hope to win a Majority.
The conservatives hardly ever have a nice thing to say about their coalition partners. in fact over at Conservative home, they delight in publicly trouncing the party. http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2011/05/the-yellow-btards-league-table.html
Astonishing really.
This site is hardly ever critical of its coalition partners, there certainly are not any threads written that are a direct attack on the Conservatives.
I believe that whilst the party carries on with this “love in ” ideal of the coalition, whilst ignoring the Tory assaults, you are dooming not only yourselves as a party, but putting the rest of the country at risk through implementing Tory Ideals which will destroy our NHS, Education, Public services, workers rights and deepen the inequalities between rich and Poor.
The Tories will cast you aside like a used tissue, once they have dispensed with your services, and
Once these policies are implemented, It would take years to reverse the damage done.
uphill battle with the Tories is not the words i would use…
intresting opinions… http://conservativehome.blogs.com/leftwatch/2011/05/the-yellow-btards-league-table.html
Simon Shaw
So to summarise, you refuse to accept that VAT has damaged our reputation. I present evidence obtained after the VAT rise was announced that it did, and you refuse to accept it.
Although you initially wanted ‘any’ evidence and you were given such evidence, you have adjusted your stance again, and no longer want ‘any’ evidence but only evidence that passes your undefined acceptable evidence criteria.
The poll suggests that huge number of voters were put off voting Lib Dem because of this decision and the recent local elections and every opinion poll shows that our support has indeed been shattered.
Surely even you cannot deny that there is a correlation…
On the one hand we have you and your discussions with the voters in which you do not state whether you actually asked a single person about VAT at all. You are simply reporting what voters did not say to you.
On the other hand we have a survey which actually asks people about their opinions of the Lib Dems with specific regard to the VAT rise..
It’s a no contest really Simon.
If you want to create comparative (yet still limited) evidence that contains more substance than ‘nobody mentioned it to me’ , may I suggest that you actually ask people on the doorstep what effect the VAT rise had on their perception of the Lib Dems…
Maybe then we could have a balanced discussion…
It is the article that claims that our reputation was damaged by the VAT rise, so if you dispute that then the onus is on you to present evidence to show that to be incorrect. Unfortunately it appears that you have not actually done any research and are happy to maintain your (faith based) belief on the bases that nobody mentioned it to you.
How scientific!
I see no reason to further our discussion unless you have anything of substance to bring to the debate. So for the benefit of keeping this thread on topic, I suggest we end it now…
Tony Dawson
Barry, You were right to believe the posters. You would still be right A one party Tory government was indeed planning to bring in a hidden VAT Bombshell
I am not disputing you. I accept that it could have been worse if the Tories had carte blanche. I am simply saying that standing in front of that poster, then going ahead and raising VAT, damaged our reputation….
It is true that people on the street do not mention VAT rise, with or without links to the Lib Dems
They do if you ask them…
@Barry George
If you want to create comparative (yet still limited) evidence that contains more substance than ‘nobody mentioned it to me’ , may I suggest that you actually ask people on the doorstep what effect the VAT rise had on their perception of the Lib Dems…
That’s the sort of thing I would be interested in, and I keep asking in case anyone has got any evidence along those lines.
You keep referring to a Guardian report of a YouGov poll taken 11 months ago, and I assume that was taken in the context of media coverage of the budget (including shameless Labour Party attacks on us). I cannot see a link which gives the details of the precise questions asked and there is much in the article to suggest that the questions may have been “leading questions”.
For example, the main and the subsidiary headings to the article are: “Half of Liberal Democrat voters ready to defect after VAT rise” and “Poll shows Lib Dem supporters ready to leave the party after the massive budget cuts announced by the coalition in the emergency budget”. It seems to me to be very likely that what the poll really established was that it was the budget cuts which meant a significant loss of support, not the VAT rise.
Simon Shaw
I cannot see a link which gives the details of the precise questions asked
Well how about more recent evidence from January this year…
Our poll finds ex-Lib Dems expect long term, negative effects as a result of forming the Coalition and say that the party has broken its pre-election commitment by backing higher VAT and tuition fees.
http://today.yougov.co.uk/commentary/coralie-pring/disloyal-lib-dems
Full survey… (see page 4)
http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-14-160111.pdf
Of course, if you are waiting for someone to turn up and tell you about how they have gone round asking people about the VAT increase, you will be waiting a very long time.
No canvasser for the Lib Dems is going to go and ask people what they think of a particular unpopular Lib Dem policy. You want to sell your positive points, not highlight your negative ones…
Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas…
So it appears that you were right all along. The only acceptable evidence would be that which was acquired by Lib Dems on the doorstep and because no Lib Dem is going to ask such a question, there is no evidence for you to accept.
Therefore, there is no evidence that the VAT rise had a negative effect on our reputation….
I am starting to appreciate the logical gymnastics required to maintain such a stance…. 🙂
Barry George
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I want there to be no evidence to support Scott’s assertion that on VAT the Lib Dems have made “serious concessions that have damaged their reputation”.
I would be perfectly happy for there to be such evidence, it’s just that the only such that anyone has produced are these from you:
1. An 11 month old You Gov poll, for which neither you nor I can find precise detail of the questions asked.
2. A YouTube clip showing a number of people (supposedly) being asked about their views on increased VAT, and giving us the truly amazing consensus that they would, broadly, prefer VAT to be lower not higher. Incidentally, interviewee no 3 complaining about Gas and Electricity costing more due to the increase in VAT was particularly interesting, especially as VAT hasn’t increase on Gas and Elecricity.
3. A more recent You Gov poll for which we can actually find the questions asked. Only problem is that people weren’t asked about the VAT increase. The questions all lumped together “higher VAT and student fees”.
In all honesty there is nothing that you have found so far which changes my previously expressed view (e.g. at 12.39 today) which is:
I am basically saying that, based on my own doorstep experiences, “tuition fees” is bad news for us, but “VAT” is a non-issue.
Simon Shaw
In all honesty there is nothing that you have found so far which changes my previously expressed view
I didn’t think for one second that there would be….
I am quite sure you would state that the Pope is not a catholic if it was required to maintain your argument.
Thanks for the discussion Simon; I am sure people will make of it what they will…
@JackTimms – I agree with you that the Lib Dems should be moderating the Tory government and I am also critical of the leadership for using the Coalition as cover to get through some of their agenda they could not get the party to agree on, such as Free Schools and Academies for example. I think the leadership is rowing back from that over NHS reforms for example because I think it is now recognised that Lib Dem voters have not been prepared to see the party support these kind of policies.
@ Geoffrey Payne
Good to see your response. Lets hope that the leadership starts to respect party members (and the electorates) views. On major issues such as the NHS it may lead to a path where the LDs can save the base sufficient to rebuild post Conservative coalition. I am concerned that continued travel down the current path, will do the LDs no good in the long run.
Looking forward to Scott Hills second part of the article.
@Barry George
“Simon Shaw
In all honesty there is nothing that you have found so far which changes my previously expressed view
I didn’t think for one second that there would be….”
So why did you keep supplying irrelevant “supposed” evidence? All that it did was to confirm what I have been saying all along re “Tuition Fees”, ever since 9.44 pm last night, when I said this in response to muxloe:
“I would be interested to know on what you base that. I completely agree with you over tuition fees, but on VAT ???”
Simon ,
We need to draw a line, as our side debate has taken over this thread…
So why did you keep supplying irrelevant “supposed” evidence?
Both irrelevant and supposed eh ? 🙂
I respect the fact that you think that my ‘evidence’ was irrelevant. Please respect my right to think that such evidence is highly relevant and that your discussions with the voter are somewhat less relevant…
Let people make of our discussion what they will, you have made your point and I have made mine. I have no desire to add or detract from what I have said and I am sure you don’t either.
. @ Simon Shaw…at the risk of having my comments “moderated” I’d say come knock on my door.
In my Labour nowhere, Tory/Lib Dem marginal I’ve had decades of “it’s us or the Tories” but never one Lib Dem leaflet saying, “It’s us and the Tories!” – That, rather than specific polices on VAT and the like, is what upsets so many.
You can’t appeal to an anti-Tory broadly left of centre coalition of voters one day then join a Tory led coalition broadly right of centre government a few weeks later and expect us to go, “good on ya mate!”
We might be silly ballot box fodder who didn’t understand the implications of pluralism but in our great democracy (PR arguments excepted) our ill-considered votes were putting your Councillors, MSP’s and Assembly Members in their seats.
I suggest a Tory minority government is what the voters elected and that is what they should have got. This coalition looks less about Lib Dem’s moderating the Tory’s right wing instincts and more like the Lib Dem’s own Orange book right wingers enthusiastically joining in a joint project with the Tories. Does no one on the door steps you visit point that one out?
@Kevin Colwill. I totally agree with what you say. I fear the LibDems refuse to see the anger felt by people who voted for them in 2010, only to see them morph into a different party days after the election. Every party lost that election; no party was given a mandate for anything in particular; no party had any responsibility forced upon it; voters did not vote for coalition, they simply refused to endorse any one party. The Conservatives, as the with most MPs should have governed alone because that was as near to the expressed will of the electorate as could be honestly achieved. I believe this coalition is a Tory concoction ruthlessly put together with the help of good-natured but naive LibDems.
So Kevin, you’d genuinely have no preference between a Lib Dem and a Tory, between Evan Harris and George Osborne?
Would you vote someone other than Lib Dem thereby increasing the Conservative’s chances of winning?
@ Kevin Colwill
Interesting views, but I don’t follow how your comments relate to my suggestion that “VAT” is a non-issue.
On the points you raise, my own thoughts are these:
– You may regard yourself as “broadly left of centre” but I feel the main Lib Dem appeal has been centrist. Of course that will mean that some who would categorise themselves as “centre-left” or “centre-right” will support us.
– I would dispute your categorisation of the Coalition Government as “broadly right of centre”. I consider it to be centrist, not far from the last Labour government (of course you may regard that last government as broadly right of centre as well). On some issues it is clearly slightly to the left of the Labour government and on some slightly to the right.
– I don’t follow your comment about “our ill-considered votes were putting your Councillors, MSP’s and Assembly Members in their seats.” Are you saying that in your “Labour nowhere, Tory/Lib Dem marginal” people would be equally happy that Tory councillors were elected rather than Lib Dems?
– I certainly don’t agree with your assertion that “a Tory minority government is what the voters elected and that is what they should have got”. The voters did not elect a government; they elected 650-odd MPs. Other commentators on this thread have also referred to opinion poll evidence supportive of the coalition that seems to contradict you.
– On your comment that “this coalition looks less about Lib Dem’s moderating the Tory’s right wing instincts and more like the Lib Dem’s own Orange book right wingers enthusiastically joining in a joint project with the Tories. Does no one on the door steps you visit point that one out?” the answer would be that no-one has pointed that out to me, which must surprise you (have you ever been canvassing??). Tuition Fees …. Council Cuts …. Public Sector job losses …. YES. Orange Book takeover…. NEVER.
Simon Shaw
Tuition Fees …. Council Cuts …. Public Sector job losses …. YES. Orange Book takeover…. NEVER.
I think you miss the point Simon, or are you avoiding it…
‘Orange book’ is a political term that is not widely used or even known about by most of the public.
The question I would ask you is…
Has anyone ever said to you that they are upset that we joined a coalition with the Tories or that we are too compliant with what is seen as Conservative policies ?
The answer to that question would be more relevant than the quantity of members of the public who used the phrase ‘Orange book’
It is not the term that is essential to the question but the belief by some members of the public that we have shifted the party towards the right.
@Neil –
“…..there mustn’t have been many of these people at the special conference where it was a massively overwhelming vote for coalition……”
Well – the so-called “Special Conference” was for the Party élite – in other words ONLY Federal Conference Representatives were allowed to go although many of the whole membership would have wished to do so, we were not permitted. Only these and their opinions were counted – very few of the Conference Reps, if ANY of them at all, asked the opinion of the Members of their own Local Parties. Therefore the voices of the full Membership were neither heard nor were their opinions counted. THAT wasn’t Liberal.
I have remained in the Party, but under protest, in the hope that someone in this Coalition Government will see sense and start to put their foot down and stand up against the excesses of David Cameron and his cohorts! The Conservatives are riding rough-shod over the people of the UK but especially the poor, the vulnerable and the disabled in their efforts to bring the economy back under control. WE are not the ones to blame for the economy débâcle – it is the fault of those at the well-off end of the economic scale who wheel and deal, evading tax, massaging figures, finding ways of creative accounting and all the other doges (including buying up toxic debts and hedge funds) who are the ones to blame. Penalise them by al means but leave those of us “at the bottom of the pile” alone. It is very hard in our situation to remain loyal to a Party which is stabbing us in the back us left, right and centre!
If I am to remain a Party Member, I would like to see some evidence of the views of the full membership (not the minority) being heard, listened to and taken into consideration. That is what the words “Liberal” and “Democratic mean!
@ Simon Shaw…Barry George has got in before me.
Of course I don’t think the term “Orange book” is used much on the doorstep or in the pub. It’s a shorthand term I would only use on a forum like this one.
My point is that voters saw, “the new politics” and saw the Lib Dems and Tories working on a joint project and concluded that either the Lib Dems have no principals or else they actually have a lot of common cause with modern Tories. In particular they saw a party significantly to the economic right of where they imagined them to be.
So I imagine you don’t ever hear about “an Orange book takeover” but I do imagine you here “you’re all a bunch of Tories!”
@ Andrew Tennant… Of course (religion aside) I’d prefer policies espoused by Evan Harris to those of George Osborne. I actually liked a lot of Lib Dem policy back in days when they were widely regarded as to the left of Labour.
Sadly it looks like the views of Evan Harris et al have lost out to the followers of economic liberalism. A philosophy I regard as fundamentally right wing and totally compatible with the economic analysis of George Osborne.
Right now I can’t vote for a Lib Dem party that is not biased against the public sector in provision of essential services. I’m not so impressed with other Lib Dem policies as to overlook that so I’d rather cast a “wasted” vote for the Greens or Labour.