Now that Ed Miliband has apparently embraced the Liberal Democrat agenda (voting reform, civil liberties, fairer taxation, condemnation of the Iraq war, cleaning up ‘the city’, the need for ‘fiscal credibility’ etc.,) he raises an intriguing question. Could Labour form a coalition government before the term of the present one expires?
The maths is intriguing. Labour currently hold 258 seats. Since Sinn Fein refuse to take up their five seats in Parliament the ‘magic number’ for a majority is an attainable 323. Were Labour to win three by-elections by taking seats from the Scottish Nationalists or Plaid Cymru, and were prepared to form a coalition with their ‘sister’ party, the Northern Ireland Social Democratic and Labour Party, Northern Ireland’s Liberal MP (from the Alliance Party), and the Green Party MP, a coalition with the Liberal Democrats would allow them to form a government with 323 seats against a ‘possible’ Conservative led coalition of 322 (assuming the Tories can come to an accomodation with the Nationalist parties and the Ulster Unionists).
I am not saying that such a coalition is desirable or even achievable. The sincerity of Labour’s new leader is not enough to overcome the emnity and distrust that many of his party’s members harbour towards other parties, particularly the Liberal Democrats, The Labour party needs to retreat from its tribalist instincts, particularly at grassroots level in the north, and accept that only they can make the necessary approaches if they are interested in forming a progressive alliance based on mutual respect and a shared agenda.
One point worthy of note for the Liberal Democrats. With Labour less than a handful of seats away from forming a coalition with other like-minded progressives, Liberal Democrat leverage on the Tories may be stronger than we realise. With some deft management we could get more from the current coalition than we perhaps realise.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Maria Jones from The Box of Delights would agree that Die Hard is a Christmas film
Number 12: The Innocence Mission - Black Sheep Wall
Lib Dems see of Reform in Barnsley with double their vote
Cleanliness at Harris Academy swimming pool #dundeewestend
Welsh councils still facing financical difficulties
Nonconformistradical
Tristan Ward
Geoffrey Payne
Mary Fulton
91 Comments
We should avoid Labour like the plague. If we start cosying up to the statist, fiscally irresponsible, warmongering, anti-growth Labour party then I’m out of the party.
If we think the Tories are bad bedfellows, Labour will be even worse. They have a distinctly illiberal philosophy at the very core of the party.
There’s a hell of a lot of water under the bridge to pass before Labour can be considered a coherent, reliable and worthy party of government; you’re definitely putting the cart before the horse by raising this issue.
Interesting possibility – and one that many Lib Dems will probably be tempted by given the Tory shouting about Trident over the last couple of days.
However I think it could be dangerous for the Lib Dems – they have a chance to influence current Government policy and demonstrate their ability in power, changing alliance to form a new coalition could, however, give the appearance of Lib Dems being unreliable and that may sit uncomfortably with many voters in the future
Seems pretty unlikely that this is ever going to be a serious option – but if it were, I think the party would need to think very very carefully before withdrawing from a five year deal. What credibility would it have as a future coalition partner if it breaks such deals for no good reason?
In the event that the coalition fell apart disastrously mid-term, I suspect Labour would prefer to seek a new election rather than make do and mend in the way you suggest.
Why would Labour want to try to form a multi-party coalition government with a wafer-thin majority, rather than forcing a fresh election?
I think that the chances of there being 3 bye-elections in seats held by the nationalists are exceedingly small. Much greater would be the chance of Labout taking 3 seats from the conservatives in a bye-election, making the maths:
Lab/Lib/SDLP/Green 323
Con+Nationalists 319
Coalition Majority 4
Not much, but goverments have done it with as much in recent history.
Much more likely is for Labour to take say 30 seats from the tories in a general election, becoming the largest party.
It would be irresponsible and seen as self interested to jump into a Labour coalition before the end of the parliament. Not only unwise but I can’t see the voters approving either. Labour cannot win enough by elections to force the issue. It could only happen if the coalition fails but somehow new elections were not called. I can’t see either us or the Tories making such a big deal out of an issue that it splits the coalition.
I think it is finally dawning on the LibDems how the benefit cuts are going to affect their party hence these overtures to the Labour Party. Many like me left the LibDems to join the Labour Party because we felt we could no longer trust the LibDems. So I am not in favour of a Coalition for the moment.
Incidentally, I was interested to see that according to a recent YouGov poll supporters of first past the post now have a significant lead over supporters of AV (40% against 35%). A month or two ago the polls were showing them neck and neck.
http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-051010.pdf
The maths is less unfavourable than is suggested. The Nationalists would have a lot of trouble siding with the Tories against Labour if it came to the crunch. The DUP would probably sell out to the highest bidder.
Of course Gordon had to be booted out last May. Of course the New Labour legacy over Iraq and civil liberties leaves a bad taste that Miliband mouthwash won’t easily wash away. Of course we’d have severe trouble if we caused instability within a year or so of the last election – which is why, as an opponent of coalition, I think the only realistic alternatives in the short term are a renegotiation with the Tories or a supply-and-confidence deal with them. But, but, but.
We must give ourselves some better leverage in the longer term. These cuts will be disastrous, and we shall share the blame, unless we clearly demonstrate we have mitigated the disaster. To get that leverage, we need to recognise and declare that well before five years are up, a change of governing alliance cannot be ruled out.
John Ruddy – absolutely right. For the life of me I can’t see why Matt is thinking of by-election gains from the nationalist parties rather than the Tories. As far as the SNP are concerned Labour would only have a theoretical chance in two of the six seats, and what are the statistical chances of either of those falling vacant? Angus Brendan MacNeil and Stewart Hosie are both in the pink as far as I’m aware!
The truth is that the arithmetic for a progressive coalition is already there, because the nationalists would be happy to give it a fair wind. But, sadly, some Lib Dems were determined to promote the narrative that “the numbers simply aren’t there” to justify their unholy alliance with the Tories, and a number of Labour neanderthals did the same because they were so horrified by the idea of having to work with other parties. “Purity or death” is the mantra for the likes of John Reid and Tom Harris.
More likely is that some Lib Dem MPs will cross the floor to Labour after the AV vote end in a “no” and the Liberal vote goes through the floor in the May 2011 elections.
Anthony A St,
Yes, Labour might very well want to force an election rather than form a coalition. We on the other hand might refuse to help them get the dissolution, while being prepared to consider the coalition. Endless semi-unofficial chats to Labour would, amongst other things, hold a Sword of Damocles over Cameron and gain us some leverage. If, that is, we have a leader who wants to use that leverage for anything other than shifting further to the Right!
In the event of the present coalition breaking down – which I don’t see as likely at the moment – I think we would see a choice between two minority governments; Conservative or Lab/LD. When you’re so close to the line it makes little sense to hitch yourself to a small party like the Greens or DUP, rather just rely on your majority over the opposition and deal on individual issues if required. There’s no reason to invite Elfyn Llwyd or Caroline Lucas around the cabinet table.
In terms of practical politics teaming up with Labour mid-parliament would be suicidal. They clearly have no concept of how to deal with the economy and the voters don’t trust them and would not trust us if we just cut and run mid term.
ROFLMFAO you really are having a laugh here arn’t you for crying out lod this is absurd, you have burnt the bridges on this one I am afraid.
there is no way you can switch sides now either carry on kicking the poor, slashing benefits, destroying the economy and generaslly being torys or bring down the government your chioce.
Why on Earth would the Nationalists want to prop up the Tory Government? Do you know anything about politics?
“Yes, Labour might very well want to force an election rather than form a coalition. We on the other hand might refuse to help them get the dissolution, while being prepared to consider the coalition. Endless semi-unofficial chats to Labour would, amongst other things, hold a Sword of Damocles over Cameron and gain us some leverage. If, that is, we have a leader who wants to use that leverage for anything other than shifting further to the Right!”
To be honest I think the party is probably stuck with the coalition for the full five years now. What it desperately needs to do is project a distinctive image and maintain a separate identity, rather than blending seamlessly into the Conservative Party. It needs to test the doctrine of collective responsibility to the limit and really rock the boat on occasion, or else it may well face effective annihilation in five years’ time.
Back in May, the arguments against a coalition with Labour were as follows:
(1) The arrangement would not be stable, because adding together all the Labour and Lib Dem MPs would fall short of a majority.
(2) Handing the SNP (and to a lesser extent Plaid Cymru) the Sword of Damocles is politically unacceptable. Could we conscientiously trade the union just to stay in power?
(3) The Labour dinosaurs (including Brown) were determined not to have a Coalition.
(4) Labour had been comprehensively rejected by the electorate, achieving their 2nd worst result since the War. It would not have looked good to keep the loser in office.
These were insuperable difficulties. But that was May. With a new Labour Leader who is evidently more amenable than Brown, and a deficit reduction policy that could be heading for the rocks, the situation is a little different. Few difficulties are so insuperable that they cannot be overcome in the right circumstances.
“To be honest I think the party is probably stuck with the coalition for the full five years now.”
That’s certainly how it feels right now. But five years ago, let’s recall, we were defined by Kennedy’s opposition to Iraq. A heck of a lot changes in five years. A lot will look wholly different in five months when the cuts bite and our polls plummet.
I can’t see it. If things do go mams-up then it will be difficult for the Lib Dems to say “right we sincerely did believe in this, know we sincerely believe in *this*.” With Clegg as third-most influential right-winger I think it’s not til death do you part with the Tories.
A temporary truce over AV though would be nice, and if AV passes it will give more of an incentive for Labour people to look at PR.
A Labour-led coalition will hopefully sometime after the next election or two be possible, I just can’t see the Lib Dems being in it. The maths don’t take into account those Lib Dems, the ones in government now, who are ideological rightists who would never seriously go into coalition with Labour.
Mike, I see Huhne and (even Clegg on some issues) as a pretty influential left-winger too. Probably best not to a) rely on the Telegraph too much as I’m sure you’ll agree or b) think in left/right terms.
And whilst I agree that – given a press which views changes of minds as ‘weakness’ and disagreement as ‘fundamental incompatibility’ I am not ashamed to say we might change our minds in the future – it is what real people do. (John Stuart Mill would heartily approve.)
Perhaps more importantly, the principles which underlie our party have not changed. So this could lead to a change of mind on the present course of action.
[There is, in my opinion, nothing we ‘sincerely believe’ that is not contextual…]
The Tory vote is pretty solid. It is our seats that are more vulnerable to being lost to Labour…
I think a coalition with Labour (if the numbers could stack up) would do a lot to silence the more reactionary Labour elements. The LibDem/Lab coalition in Scotland seemed to work out well for 8 years. And if we weren’t in this coalition it would probably work out well after May.
I for one think that an alliance with Labour is the only policy for a progressive left of centre party like the Liberals to support.
The present con-dem coalition is a sham – whereby liberals are propping up Right wing Tory policies like cutting public expenditure and the desire for a small state ie reduction in welfare, regulation to protect the consumer etc. Labour is the natural partner to the Liberals as both parties are centre left, progressive, essentially believe at their heart in civil liberties, against big spending on armaments, against foreign wars etc. The last Labour government was an abberation and Labour supporters hated a lot of what Blair etc were doing. The new leadership in the Labour Party means we as Liberals can at last ditch this so called coalition and join with Labour. We might have to ditch Clegg and his Orange group supporters of course. But that would mean returning to true Liberal values and as in the prvious but one elelction and have a proggressive high rate income tax, local government income tax and other Liberal ideas shelved in the last few years.
it seems that lib dems would rather stay with government who oppose av and want to ‘cleanse’ london of the poor. The cuts announced yesterday to family allowance put the cat among the pigions. Did just call me dave consult just call me nick at his mansion. There is no way he is going to give up the jet set life to join labour because his country needs him to do so.
I thinkt he important thing that Liberal Democrats need to remember is that they might be in a coalition with Labour – either soon, if the current arrangements break down (and that might be from disaffected right wing tory backbenchers as much as Lib Dem’s wanting out) – or after the next election.
If you want to be taken seriously as coalition partners, then you need to stop bashing Labour at every opportunity. yes Labour made mistakes, but dont carry on with the Tory narrative – they dont care about their relationship with Labour. Some of the things that the tories claim are “Labour’s fault” simply arn’t. Some of the things they say Labour got wrong they didnt. Dont go along with them. At the moment, the feeling is that a coalition will only be possible with Nick Clegg resigning as leader, possibly with others having to go as well (Danny Alexander is rapidly becoming a hate figure, due in most part to his language). And its all because they are becoming more Tory than the tories, in their language. Re-writing the history of the days after the election is becoming tiresome too – if it was the parliamentary arithmatic, say so, but dont come out with such a transparent pack of lies like “It was Greece”.
I couldn’t see a coalition happening at all with Clegg at the helm, he’s far too tainted by the Tories, after all look what happened with GB. The only way it may happen is if the rank and file Lib Dems distance themselves from Clegg as there’s little or no hope of Clegg distancing himself from the Tories.
This idea is a non-starter, in my opinion.
The LibDems are just managing to change people’s perception of hung parliaments and coalition governments. Playing around with the system in this way would be in nobody’s interest -certainly not the Liberal Democrats’ interest. There’d be the same ‘hung parliament’ ads at the next election, too – and they’d be even more damaging than they were this time round. And rightly so! And the LibDems would lose even more trust than they have lost in some quarters by forming the present coalition.
Moreover, exchanging a coalition government with a reasonable majority for one that can be held to ransom by just one stubborn MP. I am sorry, but that just doesn’t sound right.
I think it’s better for the LibDems to stick it out with this lot, and to make the best of the coalition we have. Yes, some decisions will be very much against the grain – but I bet it would be the same with a Lab/Lib coalition – and with added agony caused by the marginal majority.
I think it’s time to stop dreaming of that centre left coalition for the moment and to get on with making the centre-right deal we have work as well as possible – things may look very different after the next general election (which I very much hope will be in 2015)..
I was watching channel 4s Dispatches the other day and it was extremely worrying how Cameron is so close to the murdoch empire and how appalling it would be if de-regulation and free market attitude of the Tories could well ensure murdoch starts to stifle true free media debate in this country. How can Liberal stand to watch this anti- European, Sun owning, highly illiberal man turn Britain into a Belisconi style one media dominated society. The Murdoch empire acolytes (chipping norton set) are only a heartbeat away from our (we are all in it together) prime minister and his multi millionaire public school dominated cabinet.
I agree with the consensus, this isn’t viable. If the coalition were to collapse, Labour would want an immediate election, hoping to capitalise on the crisis that caused the breakdown.
But raising the issue does illustrate that the fixed term legislation has changed things. Before fixed term legislation was introduced, if the coalition failed, Cameron as PM would have been able to force an immediate election. Now, in theory, an alternative government could be formed.
@Mike(The Labour one) ‘If things do go mams-up then it will be difficult for the Lib Dems to say “right we sincerely did believe in this, know we sincerely believe in *this*.”’
I agree. That just isn’t realistic in political terms.
“A temporary truce over AV though would be nice”
Indeed. Hopefully, the AV referendum will be a chance for some Lib Dem and Labour members to remind themselves that the other isn’t the devil incarnate.
“A Labour-led coalition will hopefully sometime after the next election or two be possible, I just can’t see the Lib Dems being in it. The maths don’t take into account those Lib Dems, the ones in government now, who are ideological rightists who would never seriously go into coalition with Labour.”
I don’t agree. If the deficit is mostly sorted by then, the Lib Dem agenda could be very different: opposition to a tax-cutting Tory agenda, and wanting to use growth to improve public services.
In my opinion, if Labour had won, they’d be implementing severe cuts, and they’d appear ideologically right wing. The real test of whether a party is leftwing or not will be the policies they adopt once the deficit is under control.
@Jonathon Wilson “It is our seats that are more vulnerable to being lost to Labour”
Which seats do you mean? Most of our seats have the Tories in second place.
@John Ruddy “If you want to be taken seriously as coalition partners, then you need to stop bashing Labour at every opportunity”
John, I’m afraid our political culture doesn’t give politicians any option but to bash their opponents. If the coalition didn’t try to blame Labour for the cuts, then they’d take all the blame themselves. Labour did exactly the same after 1997.
A post-2015 Lib Dem/Lab coalition is perfectly possible. If Ed Miliband need Nick Clegg to become Prime Minister, he’ll quickly forget saying Clegg would have to resign. They’ll both say it’s what the voters have chosen, and they’ll make jokes in the Rose Garden about how healthy is a diet of your own words. Lots of Labour and Lib Dem members will grimace in distaste. But if the arithmetic requires it, it’ll happen.
If Ed Miliband need Nick Clegg to become Prime Minister, he’ll quickly forget saying Clegg would have to resign.
Who says that Clegg will still be leader after the conservative dominated coalition has finally screwed the North and the poor, the working classes and even the lower middle classes completely!
All I can see as the Tories use the opportunity of the so called crisis to destroy the welfare state or sell it off in the big society (hoho) is the Labour vote shoot up and liberals continue to disapear into oblivion – unless of course we pull out of this ghastly knightmare ASAP
Simply not possible with Clegg at the helm…
George Kendall
‘ I’m afraid our political culture doesn’t give politicians any option but to bash their opponents. If the coalition didn’t try to blame Labour for the cuts, then they’d take all the blame themselves. Labour did exactly the same after 1997.’
This is absolute nonsense when you consider Nick Clegg was selling us a new way of doing politics – being fair and transparent. Not fair if you blame Labour for things they are not responsible for. Or was that another lie of Nick’s. Blaming Labour for everything will only backfire on you. We, the electorate, don’t like being patronised and are well aware that there is a global financial crisis and the financial sector has much to answer for the mess we are in. The easy option was taken to reduce the deficit by slashing benefits first which is idealogical rather than a real desire to reduce the deficit. The cutting of child benefit and then compensating those families with marriage will negate any savings. Surely if deficit reduction was a serious issue then taxing bankers bonuses, dealing with tax evaders should have been a priority which would have yielded more immediate revenue.
Ah no edit button. I meant compensating families with married person’s allowance.
You seem fairly sanguine while you help destroy the welfare state and bring back mass unemployment ,so I can’t see it happening. Cheers !
It’s a five year agreement. But if the AV referendum is lost, as it probably will be, it is going to be a very long 4 years in the Tory lobbies.
I wouldn’t want to see a change in Government before the end of this Parliament. For everything we’ve said about being in this for the long term, believing in pluralism and compromise, it would damage not only our credibility as a party, but also the credibility of the things we believe in.
We knew what we were doing, as a party, when we went into a coalition with the Tories. We knew we’d have to swallow things we don’t particularly like, but we knew we’d have a better chance of delivering political reform than this country has seen for decades, of delivering tax cuts for the lowest earners, of making things fairer than the Tories would do on their own. We owe it to the country to see this through, keep the Tories in check and live up to our promises.
Also, it’s going to take until 2015 to see whether Labour as a party will grow up and actually become a progressive force again, or even a credible opposition. Ed Miliband’s defence of Labour’s National Identity Database and mass DNA collection, shortly after criticising his party’s assault on civil liberties, suggests that the words are still confused and the deeds yet to appear.
@BB
Tax evasion is illegal so I would hope that people would have been tackling it a lot earlier than waiting for the coalition to sort it out.
Unless you meant Tax avoidance? This can also include any ISAs/NSI savings (the tax free savings offered by Gov to entice people to lend them money) or the such like that you may hold.
“Blaming Labour for everything will only backfire on you”
Can’t recall anyone blaming Labour for everything (although I heard a whisper that Gordon ordered the met office to give us a really bad summer – tsch, the lengths they’ll go to) – but for the major bits I’ve seen I think they have to take it on the chin.
There are 2 big problems with this
1st, moral. We signed a contract & as long as the other party keep their side that is the end of it. We had a special conference where delegates voted 98% in favour of the coalition, isnt it time for the 2% to shut it ? Actually I suspect that a lot of the whingers are Labour Trolls, perhaps they could prove me wrong by giving their local Party ? Mine is Camberwell & Peckham.
2nd, Labour arent going to survive till 2015. Labour have been boasting about their new membership peak of 180,000 but they also peaked in 1997, at 415,000, in 1979 at 700,000 & in 1952 at one Million. Notice the trend ? Not just 60 years of decline but an accelerating decline.
@BB “Not fair if you blame Labour for things they are not responsible for”
Except I disagree with you. While Labour weren’t responsible for the recession, I think Labour should take a lot of the blame for the structural deficit. Of course, Labour supporters disagree, but I’m okay with people having different opinions.
I’m thinking about a detailed article on the reasons behind the structural deficit, but I’m still unsure how to phrase it, as I don’t want to increase the bad feeling between Lib Dem and Labour supporters further. There’s enough of that already.
It would be quite wrong to break our agreement and switch sides merely for a marginally better deal. However there is no harm in being ready to form a government with Labour in case the Tories were to renege on the agreement and spirit of the coalition in some very substantial way.
And in 2015 we should talk first to whichever party has the clearer mandate in votes and seats.
The idea of ‘respecting’ a Liberal Democrat just caused me to be little sick in my mouth. I fear I may have come down with ‘tribalism’.
It’s just too soon to even try to answer the question. Since coalitions are likely to be the only vehicle for power nothing should be ruled in or out. The Tories will want to dump the LD’s as soon as they can and we had better get used to it that as a third party it will always be more of a choice based on necessity that love. Dave obviously didn’t credit us with much other than an obligatory “jolly well done Clegg old chap.” today.
George Kendall
‘I don’t want to increase the bad feeling between Lib Dem and Labour supporters further.’
You couldn’t increase the bad feelings any more as they are the worst they can ever be. I think LibDems will never be forgiven for supporting and enabling the Nasty Party to cause such havoc and devastation to poor people’s lives.
@BB
“LibDems will never be forgiven for supporting and enabling the Nasty Party to cause such havoc and devastation to poor people’s lives.”
Sorry, I thought they went into coalition with the Conservatives – damn, mix up on terminology, Labour are the Wicked and Malicious party aren’t they – though what they’ve left behind can be classed as nasty which is why I probably got it all mixed up.
@George Kendall
“While Labour weren’t responsible for the recession”
I suppose it depends on what you mean by responsible, does turning a blind eye to things because they were making lots of money count as being responsible? If not then you’re right, it’s just a shame that the inaction led to such drastic results and all the pain that will be coming our way.
@ BB – believe me, the feeling is mutual.
What you could have done for “poor people” with 13 years of government. Labour a “progressive party”? I am honestly disgusted by the behaviour and attitude of some Labour party members.
This course of action would be deeply dishonourable, damaging to our party’s reputation, and one I would oppose absolutely.
As Mike said in this post’s first comment, Labour are “statist, fiscally irresponsible, warmongering” and “anti-growth”.
Intriguing mathematical exercise but we all know Nick has no plan B.
He is determined to cling on to Cameron and hope for the best as his ‘strategy’ for the next four years.
What incalculable damage may be wrought on the Liberal Democrats between now and then seems to be viewed by Nick as inconsequential trivia now that he can run around the U.N. attend Cabinet meetings and feel important.
When the cuts hit Nick’s attitude will have to change.
He can either by the strong Leader of a viable and separate Liberal Democrat Party or spend all his time being Cameron’s Pet Cabinet Minister. He can’t be both with any credibility as the public are telling us very clearly.
All this stuff about Labour being responsible because of the lax regulation. I agree, the tories disagreed with this. They said we had it wrong. They said we should have a different level of regulation of financial services in this country.
They wanted even less than Labour.
Just think about it.
If Labour got it wrong – the tories would have made it even worse.
Its hypocrites I can’t stand.
@John Ruddy
I don’t think it was the amount or regulation, after all the Labour Government absolutely loved regulation, they created rain forests worth of it. It was the lack of quality, to little enforcement by the regulator and an unwillingness to confront the problem (thereby losing all that stamp duty/CGT etc) that really caused the issue.
I think I see what is going to happen. Quite simply, there is going to be a split in the Liberal Democrats.
Scenario 1.
The cuts work, growth returns, the tories track rightward (because they feel they can), and some Liberal Democrats track with them. I’m thinking those who are on the right anyway, and who have hitched their bandwagon to the tories – Nick Clegg etc. This will be the final straw for some Lib Dems and there is a split.
Scenario 2.
The cuts dont work (or not as well as hoped). The tories loose the next election (I would imagine theres Lib Dem losses too, but thats by the by) and either Labour win outright, or are the largest party. Nick Clegg and those on the right cannot bring themselves to work with the new Government. The party splits.
NOw I’m not saying that this will be an equal split. But there will be big names on both sides. The only solution is to make sure that the Lib Dems do not become more Tory than the tories. I see tory backbenchers, even tory ministers feeling able to criticise the governments policies, but Liberal Democrat ministers being ultra-loyalists. Madness. You will need to distance yourself from the tories-whilst in Government.
I admit to an intense level of ignorance about Scottish and Welsh politics, but if we’re playing (highly implausible in my opinion) “what if” games, why is it apparently unthinkable to the nationalists to be included in this new coalittion?
@John Ruddy
“I think I see what is going to happen……”
Both are feasible scenarios, there is a third of course (or third of many I should say):
Scenario 3.
The cuts work, growth returns, the tories don’t track rightward and the electorate reward both parties in the Coalition by giving them a huge boost in seats.
Being at the top of the leader board for cynical attitudes towards politicians (of the all variety), I find it hard to believe that I just wrote that.
And BTW Bob @ 10.00pm I’ve been posting here for quite some time but you seem unaware of this so I’ll do the decent thing if you won’t and change my moniker rather than have anyone cause confusion or mischief.
@Painfully Liberal
“…why is it apparently unthinkable to the nationalists to be included in this new coalition?”
Well, I suppose if they were going to insist that their respective Countries were excluded for the pain, that might be one reason (I believe that was what they were originally trying to put forward when the talk was of a grand coalition)
I’d stick with what we’ve got – even allowing for the unlikely twiddling required Labour are untrustworthy partners (ask the LDs in wales or scotland if you can’t remember the 70s)… and although I’d say that we could make common ground with the SNP, any coalition based on the idea that Plaid Cymru could behave responsibly (or even get its own MPs to agree on anything) will deservedly fall apart and lay the way open for the Tories to return to power without us.
And by the way, in case you don’t know this, Plaid Cymru REALLY hate the Liberals. It’s about the only thing most of them can agree on!
There is no way Labour will accept a coalition with the Lib Dems in this parliament, nor will they likely do it in the next, unfortunately for you guys, you are the fall guys in what’s going on, as the polls show.
The Lib Dems I feel sorry for are the likes of Lorely Burt in Solihull, she has won two of the most unlikely election victories ever in Solihull, there was a boundary change after 2005, which made her re-election even more unlikely and still she won, it’s a shame she won’t win a third as she’s hard working but she will be toast at the next election.
It’s not wise to predict the outcome of the 2015 election, which will be held under different boundaries and hopefully with a different voting system. One thing for certain is that the Lib Dems won’t disappear.
Looking at by-elections we are losing against Labour in areas where people quite simply just hate the Tories. They might not know why they hate them, but they do. They hate us not because we have bad policies or candidates, but because we don’t hate the Tories anymore. Labour are getting hysterical, and have lied about bogus lib dem policies, eg: leaflets suggesting Lib Dem policy is to kick tenants out of their council homes.
In rural areas, smaller cities, home counties towns, wealthy suburbs we are actually gaining seats from the Tories. Where the arguments are about getting problems sorted, having the right policies and campaigning hard on the issues, we win where we work hard.
We need to find a way to combat Labour’s hysteria about CON-DEM-NATION!!!!!! AND CON-DEM-CUTS!!!!!! and wrecking the NHS and other such hyperbolic phrases in areas where talk of policies just isn’t listened to.
While it would be very unwise for the Liberal Democrats to be permanently associated with either of the two major parties, my understanding is that there is a commitment to see the current government out through a full five-year term of parliament. The only viable reason I can see for reneging on that commitment would be if Labour could successfully win a vote of confidence against the government. Then the Liberal Democrats would have good reason to negotiate with whoever seemed best able to form a new government. But barring such a scenario (which one can only imagine in conditions of extreme crisis) the government ought to run for the full five years.
I also think that when the next election is called, the Liberal Democrats should resign from government and contest the election wholly independently.
It will never happen.
You’ve got into bed with the devil and realised that he’s a bit of a rascal. Tough. You’ve aligned yourself with Thatcherites and decided all along they were right. The electorate will not forgive you. Clegg, Cable, Alexander + Huhne will be long gone before anyone in the Labour party seeks to work with you.
Coalition is so grown up isn’t it? After having your Conference speeches reviewed by Dave ‘n’ Gideon – was the favour returned?
Consulted on Trident? No
Consulted on the Married Couples allowance? No
Consulted on Child Benefit withdrawl? Not even the cabinet was – so no.
Now go and do what you keep telling us you’d do – soften the Tories. Evidence is, you’ve made them even more right-wing.
Agree with the consensus that the likelihood in this Parliament is close to zero. The more interesting debate is what happens in 2015. My guess is that the idea of equidistance will have gone almost entirely. We will be or will be widely seen as a party of the centre right. Judging by the comments on here over the past few months I realise increasingly this is what we already are in some parts of the UK. There wlll come a point before the next election where many of us on the centre left of the party will have to determine whether we stay.
“The more interesting debate is what happens in 2015.”
The problem for the Lib Dems is that even if the party maintains something like the level of support it’s enjoyed in the last few elections – which I think is a pretty optimistic assumption considering the steep decline in its poll ratings at a time before the Tories are suffering any incumbent unpopularity at all – it’s statistically unlikely that the support for the other parties will be distributed so as to produce a hung parliament. That’s especially true if the AV referendum fails and if the constituencies are reduced in size.
Same old, same old comments.
Labour supporters still on the “betrayal” “any one not Labour eats babies” tack.
So a long way to go before the possibility of forming an alliance with them.
Oh, and Labour has already betrayed the Lib Dems once, in 1997 over electoral reform. And then had 13 years of government with rather mixed results, doing a lot of things that I count as betraying the British people.
I would count myself well left of centre, and share the aspirations of many Labour activists – but have absolutely nothing in common with the leadership of the Labour party.
There is an illusion in all this. If Labour believes that it can win a General Election without any understanding with the Lib Dems, why would it bother? A more likely outcome of the next few weeks is that a group of Lib Dem MPs will break away as an informal group and vote with Labour on specific issues. I believe that Charles Kennedy has conducted talks along the lines with Labour. A development such as this would split the Lib Dems along lines that have always been probable. The cost of participating in Government for the Lib Dems will be the break up of the party, with most of the Lib Dem members of the Government staying loyal to the Government. There are no policy differences between Clegg and Cameron. Such an allignment would produce a General Election with two Lib Dem parties one of which would not be opposed by the Tories. Hold on to your seat! Who is responsible for this? Why the membership of course who voted a Tory into itsparty leadership.
John Ruddy,
How does the EU fit into your scenarios of possible future splits in the Liberal Democrats?
Will the EU split the Tories from the Liberal Democrats in the end? Or will Ken Clarke hold the Liberal Democrats in?
Would all Liberal Democrats, like Ken Clarke, have joined the Euro? What a disaster that would have been! Do they all still want to join the Euro in the future?
Are there any Liberal Democrats at all who would like the UK to leave full membership ot the EU, the CAP and CFP, as I would like us to? Do they take notice of UK-wide opinion polls on the subject? What difference will AV make to polarisation on the issue of Europe?
@mrs B
it is YOUR chancalor that has cut mortgage interest relief for some of the most vunrable
it is YOUR PM eho wants to cut benefits to peeps he thinks are undeserving
it is YOUR government that is swinging the axe and abouty to change the country into some right wing loony tune thatcherite backwater, gawd help us what next a reintruduction of the poor laws and the work house coz they were in keeping with a strange sect of Liberalisem in the 19th century.
I listened very carefully to William Hague’s speech about locking in a veto on any future enlargement of EU powers. Basically his position is nonsense. Under the Lisbon Treaty there will be a great many changes in the future that would have the effect of the acretion of political iniatives to the EU. What is he proposing? Referenda ten times a year? Similarly with Cameron. He maintained that there would never be a future occasion when someone in a Scottish gaol could be released on health grounds. What is he proposing to do? Make Constitutional changes to the Scottish constituion. A case of good bye Scottish Tories! Those who place themselves in impossible positions can expect the worst. After a while no one takes you seriously
@Tony
“it is YOUR chancalor that has cut mortgage interest relief for some of the most vunrable”
Relief on mortgage interest repayments was removed on 6 April 2000 – which I believe can be credited to one Mr Gordon Brown – just checked and I don’t think he is the Chancellor now.
“it is YOUR PM eho wants to cut benefits to peeps he thinks are undeserving”
Suitably vague, care to be a bit more specific?
“it is YOUR government that is swinging the axe and……”
And the suitable response to that is, of course, that you can only work with what you have inherited – if Labour hadn’t screwed up things so badly then the actions being taken now wouldn’t be required. Of course, you may have preferred to keep Labour in power – even if it meant we became some sort of third world socialist banana republic. Like I say, it may be your view and I respect your right to believe in it – but thankfully enough people disagreed to allow an attempt at rescuing the situation.
@AlexKN “Judging by the comments on here over the past few months I realise increasingly this (a party of the centre right) is what we already are in some parts of the UK.”
I wouldn’t give too much significance to the balance of comments on a website. The private comments on the members forum have a different tone, but even they will be completely unrepresentative.
Similarly, we shouldn’t give too much significance to the balance of comments of Labour supporters. The real opinion of Labour supporters will be very different from the small numbers who contribute to debates on websites like this.
“This course of action would be deeply dishonourable, damaging to our party’s reputation, and one I would oppose absolutely” says Stuart, regarding a link-up with Labour. Are you remotely serious? And so propping up the Tories (they and Cameron are no more elected than Brown was) has enhanced the LibDem reputation?. My political philosophy is quite simple, it runs along the lines: there are no circumstances imaginable whereby the British public could be well served by the election of the Tory party. I supported the LibDems until early May 2010. Never again, they made a fools of themselves and me. I take heart in knowing that there are enough voters with my political philosophy (in varying degrees) to put the LibDems out of business at the next election, Bless their little Tory socks!
Does anyone remember those laughable arguments put by many in our (Lid Dem ) party that if we didn’t have a Con-Dem coalition the Tories would be comfortably ahead by October and we would be wiped out. next time someone says that rediculous ‘There is No Alternative’ thing. Remind them of what they probibly said in May .
@ Chris_sh
I of course mean SIM and not MIras and am thinking you know that.
Your gov is responsable for the actions it takes and those actions are leading to a disaster.
Look at Ireland and Spain it is the fact that they devolped thier own probs with the property market that exasperated the situation, YOUR gov is on the basis of empiracl evidance that is emerging creating a similar housing crisewss in the UK, not Labour.
The economy was being supported and that cost, now we are removing the support about to cause more problems, which will also cost, such as a collapse in the housing market, homelessness, unemployment, higher interest payments, a reduction in our credit rating, it will all cost. YOUR party has entrusted the economy to a chancallor who can’t even create a policy to get rid of child support for high earners in a coherant way, if he can’t do this how do you expect him to do anything.
but he is your chancoler so he can’t be wrong, just as Camaron is Your PM and can do no wrong, coincedently it was the Conservatives who made the biggest reductions in MIRAS
@tony
“I of course mean SIM and not MIras and am thinking you know that”
Pray tell, how exactly was I supposed to know that? But before we have any further misunderstandings perhaps you can clarify whether you actually do mean SIM or SMI.
“Look at Ireland and Spain ….”
Who both waited until it was to late to do something. As a matter of interest, what are your thoughts about the fact that the Government were being warned as long back as 2003 that there were problems in the mortgage market. I don’t suppose that the reason they held off doing anything was because they were making buckets full of cash from stamp duty/CGT etc? Perhaps if they hadn’t allowed the housing bubble to go to such extremes then a lot of the current problems wouldn’t have happened. As for a collapse in the housing market – umm, what do you think has been happening for the last couple of years?
“a reduction in our credit rating”
With the plans Labour had in place (or should I say, the lack of plans), there was a very good chance that this would have happened if they were re-elected. We kept our current rating because the credit agencies believed that the newly elected Government were serious about sorting the financial out.
“empiracl evidance that is emerging ”
Would that be in the envelope that Labour Party HQ sent you?
“The economy was being supported ”
To the cost of your children, grand children and great grand children (as a bare minimum). At what level of debt do you think Labour should have stopped borrowing? 2 Trillion debt? 3 Trillion debt? Bearing in mind that even now the expected debt level will be 1.3 trillion in a few years – I would hazard a guess at 3 trillion, sound about right to you?
“Conservatives who made the biggest reductions in MIRAS”
Yes, I’m also aware that in 1988 there was a chance of the housing market going into meltdown, prices were going through the roof and the reduction in Miras was an attempt to slow things down. The chancellor in question admits that he made a mistake in not implementing it straight away instead of giving 4 months notice as this just caused a mad rush.
You’ll notice from that comment that some one admitted a mistake and no doubt learnt lessons. The problem with Labour at the moment is that they are in denial – it is all some one elses fault, a bad man made them do it, it all started in America etc. This means that they won’t learn the lessons and they will, no doubt, repeat all of the same mistakes again if they get re-elected.
@Chris_sh
Posted 8th October 2010 at 6:55 pm | Permalink
@tony
“I of course mean SIM and not MIras and am thinking you know that”
Pray tell, how exactly was I supposed to know that? But before we have any further misunderstandings perhaps you can clarify whether you actually do mean SIM or SMI.
the fact that you are not a moron (although ofv course you are wrong) I actually was right though was I not, I mean your sarcy reply actually confirms it does it not, the pedantic correction is a bit of a give away is it not.
now to turn to the correction in the mortgage market well we know that this is according to some well overdue probably they would say it goes back a long way further than 2003, You seem to want to say that a fall is a collapse, now we have had a fall in prices a slugish performance but we to date have not had a collapse, although sep figures of 3% plus in a month could be the start of a collapse of say 20%+ in less tyhan six months. BTW that might be empirical evidance of the sort eluded to in your post, however being not sent to my by anyone would not be from Labour).
“to the cost……”
The cost is going to be twofold that is the impending second reccession/depression part two will be huge in terms of copst, and the cutting of investments will mean that there is more cost in years to come associated with say rebuilding crumbleing schools that could have been done now, instead we are to pay out for more unemploymant and more benefit , but are going to cut these so we will pay the social costs of peeps being homeless, riseing crime (with less police as the budget is to bew cut) , the gloom goes on really and it is your fault the cuts are neg and will impact in a neg way on the econemy, on the real econemy involving peeps lives and livelehoods.
As for denial I really think that the Party in denial is the LD party, the whole debt reduction thing is something that is a huge U turn for your party, this is evidant from comments made before the election, now the government is cutting in a dangerouse way there are early indicators that this may be problematic yet all you can do is say deficit denyers, it is not the cawse that anyone is denying a deficit, it is the case that peeps are Q thew haste of reduction and really I think that you should take this seriously instead of just saying ” Iam smarter than you” the fact is it is your gov that is now acting and is now making decissions and they will be judged on them , this is not 1979 and you will not get away with blaming it o labour for a decade.
oh yer one other point
You’ll notice from that comment that some one admitted a mistake and no doubt learnt lessons,
really the Conservatives have learnt exactly what lesson from this?
could they have learnt that housing market crashes cause reccessions, if so then the current cuts do seem to be somewhat risky, septembers hoiuse price figs might only be one months figs but if followed up in oct and nov then we are starring a real crash in house prices in the face; now if the figs for the 3 months sep to nov show 10% fall on the back of octobers cuts things will be looking a bit different from today. The chances of this being the case have got to be fifty / fifty me thinks.
@ tony
Posted 9th October 2010 at 10:27 am | Permalink
“he pedantic correction is a bit of a give away is it not”
It wasn’t a correction, it was a question, both abreviations are in use and you still haven’t made it clear which one you mean. I will assume for the moment that you actually mean SMI, now apparently the % being used was resulting in a 92% over payment rate, do you think that is advisable when money is short?
“now to turn to the correction in the mortgage market well we know that this is according to some well overdue probably they would say it goes back a long way further than 2003”
I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, I’m not talking about a market correction, I’m talking about problems in the mortgage industry. However you are right, some people believe that the Chancellor should have let the market correct itself in 2001 instead of stoking it up (and storing up problems for later, i.e. now). So what are your thoughts on the fact that the Chancellor was warned about problems in the mortgage industry in 2003?
“now we have had a fall in prices a slugish performance but we to date have not had a collapse”
So I assume that you class a figure of around 20% to be a collapse? In which case the market collapsed in 2009, as I said, it has already happened. There has been a recovery, initially due to the fact that people stopped putting their house on the market, so there was not enough housing to meet demand. There was probably a blip earlier in the year when HIPS was dropped and then house prices where more or less where they were prior to the bust (which most people believed was to high anyway).
However, the reverse is now happening, people are not interested in buying houses at the moment, they are trying to save for a rainy day and reducing their current debts as fast as possible (which I would hope that you think is a good idea). Add to this the fact that the banks are now closing the stable door after the horse has bolted, so it won’t be as easy to get a mortgage (no more 5, 6, 7 times annual income mortgages) and definitely harder to get anything on the self certification front. This has had the effect of reducing the house prices as the supply of houses is now greater than the demand. Will the house prices fall further – most probably, but as the cost of housing in now back to the state of being almost unaffordable then that would be inevitable.
“… the gloom goes on really …”
Well it obviously does in your circles. But most of what you descibe is where we were headed anyway, we have a far better chance of not going there now.
Also – Labour would have had to make a lot of these cuts anyway, it’s just that a lot of them guessed that they were on the way out so didn’t bother actually specifying it. After all, if you’re going to be in opposition it’s a lot easier slagging off the other side if you’ve never actually committed yourself to anything. Instead they just tried to lead people down the garden path with some fantasy scenario that they would make “cuts to lower priority spending”.
The only person who really walked out of Government with his reputation intact (on finance) was Alistair Darling, but look what he had to go through, character assassination, being briefed against, threats of losing his job and the knowledge that if Labour did win then Balls would take his job and the work he had started to try and sort things out would have been wasted.
“… U turn for your party …”
I don’t belong to a party, I’m a floating voter who happens to believe that the coalition is the best bet we have for sorting out your mess. I wouldn’t blame either of the parties in the coalition if they did continue to remind people of the fact that this all happened on Labours watch until such time as Labour faces up to what it did and learns the lessons, how long do you think that will take?
@Chris_sh
“I don’t belong to a party, I’m a floating voter who happens to believe that the coalition is the best bet we have for sorting out your mess”
Thanks for backing up the coalition on this debate. And if you ever find you’ve shifted from a floating voter to a supporter, I hope you’ll consider joining us.
We’re a broad church, with room for a wide range of opinion. And we’d very much welcome sensible people such as yourself 🙂
@Chris_sh deliberatly mis understanding; images of pots and Kettels
If I am to understand what you are saying it is that the collapse in 2009 was Labours fault, yet you say nothing of the recovery since then which I assune must be becouse the Markets could forsee the coaletion that would ride to the rescue and had abserloutly nothing to do with Labour supporting the econemy and preventing a further reccession.
Now the current cuts are nreccessary and they will not be the cause of the ensueing reccession becouse the cause is Labnours support of the economy and prevention of the further collapse in 2009
I really do not think so the point is that the chasnge in policy away from the pre election position of the LD party is allowing the Torys to make a mistake that has direct pa’ll to the one in 1988 in that it will result in a collapse in house prices, that there will be no support for the economy and that a further reccession will ensue.
I have posted up deliberatly at the very early stage of this and over the comeing months you will see more and more back this up.
OK if I go back to your aganda..
92% well I do not doubt that there may be by some contrieved mathamatical calculation a few examples where this may be the case but and it is a big but for the vast majorty it is not.
although the base rate is 0.5 this has not been passed on to lenders, and as peeps who recieve SMI are not at the top of the income structure they are less likely to have been in a position to havce taken up the best interst rates, indeed for someeven the 6% could be an underpayment.
On purely pragmatic economic grounds some of the few cases where there is an overpayment of 92%could be defended. I know you find this hard to believe but it could quite simply in these cases preventing homelessness and then having to re house by paying the mortgage costs is cheaper, even if it involves an overpayment.
Now to the broader point I was trying to make, that is these cuts are uneconmic in that they will produce bigger problems than theyt will solve, taking the example above SMI it could easily be that the cost of increased repo and homelessness would far outway the savings, this is an argument that in the past I would have expected the LIBerals to make yet they are now defending this kind of thing, I find that sad.
with regard to your view of how we got where we are Ido differ and will return on another date, however broadly the reccession we have had was as a result of a global banking crises, the position I am taking is that the one we are about to have is as a result of demostic policy,actually I think we could agree omn that bit and differ on the imortance and empases we put on (me) the actions this gov is taking, (you) the actions the previouse one took, if you would like to progress on that basis it would befine by me (please note that by a strange coincedance my posts tend to get delayed when they are a bit on the critical side)
@George Kendall
Posted 10th October 2010 at 1:34 pm
Thanks for the kind offer George – but I think it is likely that I’ll stay non-aligned – I can upset everyone then (I believe in equality 😉 )
Yes we should be strategising now on how to form and administration with Labour if they end up with more seats than the tories after the next election and look at subtle ways that we can make this outcome happen – AV would help. A long-term relatiohsip with the Tories is not in our interest – historically this has been the great “killer” of the liberal tradition (1922, 1945 etc) – whilst any modest electoral success we have achieved in the past century has been achievded by definining ourselves as progressive rather than conervative , and with at least a loose understanding of the leaders of progressive movements (including Labour and the Unions). Fundamentally, the Tories do not believe on the same ideals as we do “freedom from poverty, ignorance and conformity”. So whilst our current coalition is a necessity to redress some of the policy errors of the last adminstration and the current economic crisis – we must not get enveloped in the conservaties’ way of thinking if we want to be distinctive and progressive.
@anon “So whilst our current coalition is a necessity to redress some of the policy errors of the last adminstration and the current economic crisis ”
this is thew central problem in asserting this on Tory aganda you are burning the bridge, the cuts being justified continualy on a basis of “its all labours fault” by the coaltion gov is not only factualy wrong it is damageing to any chance of a Lab Lib coaltion. Now even if your gov was to be proved right in the long term ( and I think it will not) the kudos would go to the Torys not you therfore you loss and the Tories win. Now lets suppose that the position your party appeared to have beforev the election is right that now is not the time for cuts that a second reccession happans next year Labour will be proved correct won’t they, then they will legitamatly say we told you so, also your party would have been court out saying before the election “no to cutting aganda” then implementing one.
Now uinder those circumstances do you really think that any Labour peeps would stand for a coalletion with the Liberals.
Another factor is that people are actually begining to have a dislike and even hate for the liberals and this is a new thing I have not known of before now me thinks that a deal with the Liberals is way out the window at preasent or after the next election in huge areas of Labour thinking so I am sorry this just is very unlickly.
@tony
First of all – apologies but I’ve only just seen your posts, although I’m not certain why as I’ve tried to check back before now. Because it is late, I won’t have time to reply in one go – however to start with SMI.
the figure I quoted is direct from the DWP web site – so if it is a convoluted formula it will be the sort of one used by all governments.
You may recall that I said that Labour would have had to make a lot of cuts, but weren’t honest enough to admit it? Well you may be interested in an extract from the report “Social Security (Housing Costs Special Arrangements) (Amendment) 2009, etc – Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee” (as published on the Parliament Publications site.
“The December 2009 Pre Budget Report confirmed that “the standard interest rate used to calculate SMI will be maintained at 6.08 per cent for a further six months, benefiting around 220,000 homeowners. Once the freeze ends, the Government intends to move towards a fairer, more affordable approach, that more closely reflects mortgage interest rates.””
So it was coming anyway, but it is convenient for Labour to “forget” that it intended to do this and to let the coalition take the flak for implementing their policy. If you are saying that the reduction will cause a housing crash, then the crash would have happened had Labour won the election.
saying support will be on hold for six months and then reviewed is one thing , cutting it is another, the fact is we will not know, if labour would have cut it or wethjer having assessed it they would have maintained it or would have cut it by a lesser amount, or if they would have cut it by a lkesser amount and redirected the money elsewhere to some scheme they believed was more efficant.
As to causing a houseing crash implicit in what I have written is that this wwas an example of Labour supporting the housing market within a larger support for theeconomy,it was not the only support in the houseing market , nor was it the only support in the econoky just as this is not the only cut the tory gov will be making, my assertion is that the combined effect of withdrawing support and cuts in economy will cause another reccession and that there will be a specific hous price crash.
On another matter the Lib dems managed to hold a seat in a Local byelection “watford Cenral” I really was surprissed they got about 700 votes, labour about 625 and the torys 150 bothe Lib dem and Labour polling a siimilar proportion (about 60%) of what they had at the general election and the Tories got about 150 votes about a quarter of the vote at the general so it would appear a lot of tories voted Lib dem or that Labour just could not get enough peeps out to vote. either way don’t think anyone has much to brag about here.
@tony
Posted 15th October 2010 at 11:46 am
😀 Nice try, but you didn’t think I’d let you get away with that did you. It wasn’t a review, it was an announcement of a cut to a committee that most people wouldn’t have heard of and was probably not even on the radar of most news organisations. The most telling word though is “affordable”, in other words they knew it wasn’t affordable to continue the overpayments, but kicked it into the long grass – post general election.
I hadn’t seen the bit about the bye election, I can’t say I’m overly surprised about the turnout – people have been getting more and more p’ed off with politicians for decades. One day there will be some form of election when the turnout will be a single figure in % terms (unless of course politicians some how manage to persuade people that they are trustworthy).
How we got where we are – The Banking Myth
The Labour Spin machine has been very successful in convincing not only the party faithful that the problems in the UK were caused elsewhere, but it is also becoming a fable heard generally. But like many political lies, it starts unravelling as soon as you stop listening to politicians and start doing your own research.
As a starting point, if the global crises is the sole reason for the issues in the UK/rest of world you would expect all countries to have suffered to more or less the same degree. However this is not the case and the UK has been hit badly by what happened, i.e. one of the first in the G20 to go into recession and the last to come out, ONS reports that it was the longest and deepest recession since World War 2 whilst ( You may remember that the Labour Party tried to do a hatchet job on their own Chancellor when he said this), other countries reported the worst recession that they’d experience in the last 10 to 20 years.
So in truth the global crises actually acted as a trigger for something far worse in the UK economy, the only question left is what were the causes of the worst recession in 60 years.
Without a doubt the collapse/near collapse of the UK banks had a bad effect,the money that had to be pumped in to prop up to banks could have been used to boost other areas of the economy, so it’s not the only reason but it is one of the big ones. So who was responsible for making sure the banks behaved themselves and didn’t destroy the Country, well that would be the FSA, set up by one Gordon Brown in 1997 to remove control from the BofE. Why did the FSA fail in it’s task, we have some telling insight on this from a few sources, how about:
The Turner Review – Mar 2009
The repot raised the fact that there was a common belief (globally) that markets would “self correct”, so the FSA was spending time regulating other things and not paying enough attention to the overall build up of risk in the UK economy. Regarding the institution that kicked the whole thing off though:
“it is clear that in the specific case of Northern Rock, the FSA also fell short of high professional standards in the execution of its supervisory approach, with significant failures in basic management disciplines and procedures which have been set out in its Internal Audit report.”
When Lord Turner appeared before the Treasury Select Committee in Feb 09, he made the following comments:
“There was a philosophy rooted in political assumptions which suggested the key priority was to keep it light rather than to ask more questions.”
(when queried about the FSA and whether it was independent from political pressure).
When asked if the FSA was fit for purpose:
“We have to get it right in the future…it [the FSA] is going to be fit for purpose given the changes we are making.”
In other words, it will be fit for purpose in the future, but it wasn’t then.
Paul Moore
The FSA admitted that it had warned HBOS as far back as 2002 about the risks it was taking. Later on, Paul Moore alleged that when he tried to raise the issue he was sacked by the head of HBOS, who later went on to high office in the FSA (he denied that the allegation was true, but resigned from the FSA stating it was ‘the right course of action’.
Hector Sants
When taking over in 2008:
“There is a view that people are not frightened of the FSA, I can assure you that this is a view I am determined to correct. People should be very frightened of the FSA.”
In other words, people thought that they could get away with risky things (and they obviously did).
So there we have it, the whole system set up be G Brown was hopeless and led to a large part of the problems we now face. This is hardly surprising, if you build your whole approach on the fact that banks will always make money and house prices will always go up you don’t want a regulator messing up the message.
Now you may think that this is all dry, acedemic and beyond the point, but this lack of enforced regulation (or a light touch if you prefer) has allowed many things to flourish, including the misselling of self certifying mortgages. The FSA estimated that self certification mortgages accounted for almost half of all new mortgage advances between 2007 and Q1 of 2010. When you consider that these types of mortgages were really designed for people who may be self employed etc who could pay but would have problems getting evidence, then that “almost half” figure should have had sirens screaming at the FSA. There is a very good chance that this area is going to become the next big “misselling” scandall, with plenty of web sites already offering advice for people wanting to make claims. Many are telling potential clients that they may have a claim even if they lied about their income on the form to gain the mortgage, which is amazing as it is effectively telling people that they can claim compensation for committing fraud.
People were warning about the rise in this sort of thing long before the big bust, but it would seem that these warnings were ignored.
But is it fair to really blame people for this? After all, the housing market was in a huge bubble and it may be that people thought that they only way they could get on the ladder was to lie through their back teeth. Regardless of this, the lie will have left many of these people in a very precarious position, even if they keep their job then they are going to fail when interest rates start going up (which is bound to happen eventually as inflation is on the way up). This is the real time bomb in the housing market tbh, not the SMI issue. There will also be huge problems for the people who did this, if they default their credit rating will be effected. But if they claim for misselling on the basis that they lied about their income then the next time the look for a loan/mortgage they’ll probably find that most good lenders won’t touch them with a barge pole.
@ Chris_sh
now there is a wee bit to deal with here and indeed you are moveing on asking me to accept things I am not happy to so before we do move on lets just take a step back’
the interest rate paid while I would concead that there are pepps paying low interest rate benefiting from this scheme there are also others that pay higher. for example some may be on a tracker some may have borrowed from a non status or impaired credit or whatever other term lender and may be paying 10% this is evidentally the case.
Now the statment “the Government intends to move towards a fairer, more affordable approach, that more closely reflects mortgage interest rates” could mean many things it could mean that the interest rate would be obtained for each loan and that the benefit would be paid on that basis, it could mean that a blanket reduction be applied of 0.5 percent or it could mean the benefit is slashed as it has been now within the range of responses I do think that something other than the slashing for all claimants as done would have been Labours response.
I don’t think that is a rose tinted spectacle aproach and I do think that the Liberal democrats should have pushed for and got such an outcome as paying the benefit on a basis of interest rate paid by reciepiants.
before the long list of issues in the later post are dealt with I really do think that the cut goes further than reflecting the reduction in mortgage interest rates and would ask do you?
@tony
Posted 15th October 2010 at 9:38 pm
In reply to your points:
“…. and may be paying 10% this is evidentally the case….”
Yes it will, there were so many products on the market that it would be amazing if that wasn’t the case. However in the same answer to the Committee the Government stated that “we believe that the majority of customers are likely to have interest rates that are below 6.08%”.
So the question then has to be do we maintain the current payments, even though we realise that the majority of people will be overpaid (i.e. we pay off the capital on their mortgage, as opposed to the interest which SMI is designed for and supposed to be limited to)? Obviously the Labour Gov decided that the answer should be no – but only after the GE.
“I do think that something other than the slashing for all claimants as done would have been Labours response”
😀 See, that is probably the main difference between us – you still manage to believe in a Party regardless, where as I don’t particularly have a great liking for any of them.
But seriously, anything is possible but I would have to say that this scenario is way down the list of probabilities. It would act counter to the way Labour have done things over the last 15 years on the news management front (aka Spin). It is an acknowledged fact that Labour managed all news releases, good news was spread out to maximise the effect, bad news was released on busy days or in a surreptitious manner, or if that wasn’t possible in bundles to minimise exposure for each bad news item.
In this particular case, the bad news was released extremely quietly (as mentioned before), however I have not found any items anywhere that suggest that Labour were planning anything new or were going to make the changes you suggested (and I’ve even checked the Labour Party Web Site, the last mention of SMI I found was the extension to Dec 09). So unless you have some items, then I’m afraid the conclusion would have to be that it wasn’t going to happen.
On the final point (is it only to reflect interest rates), aside from the obvious that it is to save money, I don’t know. I would doubt if there was much more (at the moment anyway) as it was an “easy win” to do something that the previous Gov had already said they were going to do.
Now I find that unconvincing and not ewntirly a reason to move on. You assert that the majority are overpaid and really do not show it, now lets just look at the situation before we judge peeps are buying houses, the forms they filled in for the means tested benefit have the actual payments and interest on them. The avarage mortgage in the UK is about 140K, would reckon that time the fact that this benefit goes to lower section of market would mean that tis below 100K for reciepiants, so the benefit is what below 6K a year now how does this fig stack up against say housing benefit would reckon rent in the private sector would be over £600 month, so cutting the benefit (SMI) and emperaling the housing of its reciepiants may not be economic in that the result could be haveing to pay more in houseing benefit, now this was one of the reasons the benefit was brought in. I think that the primary purpose is not to save money or be fair, they have the info on file to be fair but are not doing it they are applying a blanket device in the same inept way that they cut child support.
If you accept that schemes will be spun coz that is politics you will see that yes labour have been guilty of spin but that efforts have been made to prevent riseing repo’s and these have been eeerrr succesfull or maybe just succesfullish , but there has been a track record of actual achievment on this going thro the first reccession. Now I hold that removeing this support is going to produce a second reccession , that this is a home grown one and that this policy change (removal of support for struggleing homeowners of which the cut in SMI is an example), will contribute to the upcoming reccession.
I furthewr hold that the previouse reccession is or was a global reccession, that it started in aMerica, now you hold this not to be the case well I will have to return to this but at present Iam dealing with a narrower issue and that is the upcoming reccession and its causes. There is evidance in house price data which I believe is emerging, your srgument re the reemoval ofHIPS has some merit but I actually don’t think it has the importance you do, or maybe that it will magnify the issue by giving a little boast that wears of at the same time as the big downer starts to kick in.
As for continueing to support/ believe in Labour that assumes that before this Gov was formed I supported and believed inLabour, this not being the case you are wrong, yes I believe of the partys now Labour is the only one in town,but that is only becouse it yhas maintained some credabilty on working for ordanery working peeps, and this gov is not.
@tony
Posted 18th October 2010 at 8:02 pm
“You assert that the majority are overpaid ..”
Actually Tony, I didn’t assert that. The three main parties are asserting it, Labour in January and now the coalition.
What I was asserting, and you seem to have a problem with, is that it can not be right that the majority of people (as asserted by the 3 main parties) are being overpaid, with the result that the capital amount on their mortgage is being repaid. SMI was never intended for this, it was supposed to be like the old systems that only covered mortgage interest payments.
“..and really do not show it…”
No, but as it’s not my assertion why would I. However, as you are saying that all 3 parties are wrong, do you have any hard evidence to show that what they are saying is incorrect?
“…they have the info on file to be fair but are not doing it they are applying a blanket device…”
And we come back to the central point of the discussion, your assertion that Labour would be fairer. This is, after
all, the method put in place by Labour and you now seem to be saying it was unfair (plus Labour were planning to do the same and not introduce anything new, so by extension they would have still been unfair if they had won the election).
“I think that the primary purpose is not to save money….”
So what do you think the primary reason was for 3 political parties stating that it would be cut to save money? You
haven’t actually stated why you think this wasn’t the case and what you base that belief on.
“..how does this fig stack up against say housing benefit…”
Well, you are now introducing a totally different element to the discussion, does this mean that you feel that perhaps that future Labour aren’t as wonderful as you originally thought? After all, the same point would apply now if Labour had won the election.
“..forts have been made to prevent riseing repo’s and these have been eeerrr succesfull or maybe just succesfullish..”
You may remember that I said that Labour would have had no option but to start cutting to repay the debt? I never
actually commented on the success or otherwise of what they had done so far (though I did point out that, using your criteria, there already had been a housing crash). However, what they did do was very expensive and a Country can’t live on credit for ever. They would have been forced to do the same as the coalition are doing now, the alternative would have been to risk the Countries credit rating (credit agencies were firing warning shots before the election about public expenditure) which would have resulted in a big hike on the amount of interest paid which would have meant totally savage cuts later on (and the cuts are already going to be bad anyway).
“… cut in SMI is an example), will contribute to the upcoming reccession”
Well, at least we can say we’re getting nearer on agreement on this as you now think it may contribute to a recession, rather than being the cause of one. However, you’re still looking in the wrong place for a housing crash, the brutal truth is below.
If there is a recession caused by the price of housing, SMI may be a contributing factor, but it will only have a very
minor role to play. On the post that you want to come back to later, you’ll notice that I said the Self Cert scandal
was “… the real time bomb in the housing market”. Between Apr 07 and Mar 10, there were 2.2 million mortgage
approvals, of that total 45% were self cert (figures from housepricecrash.co.uk and FSA websites) which means there were approx 990,000 mortgages using this scheme. We have absolutely no idea how many people upped the amount that they declared as their income (potentially, all of them did), but lets say only half did, that means that 445k mortgage holders out there may struggle badly when the interest rates start going up from the current historic low. Interest doesn’t even have to go up much either, a .5 rise to 1 % may double the interest payment for these people, if it goes to as little as 3% then these people could find that their interest payments have jumped by x6.
Now SMI has a 2 year limit, so the people who went onto it in Oct 08 are now going to start losing it which may result in repossessions starting soon. Balanced against that is the realisation by most lenders that it is not in their best interest to repo a house as they may lose money, so these people may get help from their lenders. Over the next 2 years all the people currently on SMI will lose entitlement, anyone starting on it now will not be on it in 2 years time.
The total number of people on SMI is approx 220k (figure from Gov website) but according to ALL of the parties, at
least 110,001 people were being overpaid so it is possible but highly unlikely that all 220k are going to lose their
house. If we want to be really pessimistic, lets say just over 2 thirds lose their house over the next 2 years, that
will equate to a monthly rate of 6500 houses coming onto the market, it is possible that the housing market could
absorb that amount without to much stress as, even at the height of the downturn in 08, there were still over 30k
mortgage approvals a month (it’s currently running at over 40k). Now that is obviously heart breaking for the home owners concerned, but to be brutally honest it probably isn’t enough on it’s own to send prices crashing.
However, the self cert issue is something completely different, if interest rates go up sharply then there is a good
possibility that those 445k mortgage holders on Self Cert may all start struggling at the same time and the market
could be flooded with repo houses, especially as lenders may find out that people coming to them for help actually lied about their income and any that will be futile. That is why I think this is the real danger and not SMI.
But self cert it isn’t the only danger. Lenders are now insisting on 25% deposits so people are having to save longer to get a mortgage, they are no longer offering self cert (even the FSA have just banned them – about 5 years to late of course and also after lenders stopped offering them anyway) so that is half the mortgage market gone, people are not going to be able to get large multiples of their income from lenders so they either won’t be able to afford the average price or will have to save even longer for an even larger deposit.
Plus there are other things as well. People are currently trying to reduce their debt which means not so many are
buying houses. This can be seen on the Credit Action web site, average household debt in Oct 2008 was £59,350 but in Oct 2010 it had dropped to £57,810. Banks are obviously not able to lend as much money at the moment, so fewer houses will be bought and then, I believe, they have to start repaying the Gov next year so there will be even less money available for mortgages. On top of that, if all the lawyers get their way then lenders could also be paying out huge amounts of cash for misselling claims – assuming that the lenders don’t retaliate by reporting all the claimants to the police for fraud (in the early 90s, the self cert market was worth about £100 million a year, however that rose in the final years to £1 billion a month).
So we have a combination of misselling/fraud, people repaying debt and a reduction in the pot of money available for mortgages which means that supply may well outstrip demand, with all of that, the best that can be hoped for is a gradual reduction in house prices to a more sensible level, or that house prices remain static long enough to allow inflation to carry out the work of deflating the prices.
This is the true Labour legacy and if you are going to gloomy, then this should be your real worry.
“…Recession….now you hold this not to be the case well…”
Actually, that’s not what I said, what I said was …”the global crises actually acted as a trigger for something far
worse in the UK economy…”
“….rgument re the reemoval ofHIPS has some merit….”
I didn’t give it any merit, all I said was “…There was probably a blip earlier in the year when HIPS was dropped ..”
This was reported at the time, where people took advantage of not having the upfront cost to put their house on the market to see what they could get.
“…As for continueing to support/ believe in Labour….”
Sorry, but you have all the signs of a “believer”, being a believer is great for religion but when it is applied to
politics it causes blind spots. I’ve consistently shown you that Labour were going to cut SMI and had not put anything in place to replace it, but as a believer you have come out with statements such as “..I do think that something other than the slashing for all claimants as done would have been Labours response…”, but obviously there is no evidence for this as Labour planned to do exactly what I said (as based on evidence).
However, your last post seems to have moved away from this slightly, so perhaps the blinkers have fallen away and you may realise that if you want the truth then you have to go and find it instead of accepting what politicians claim as the truth – in this day and age it is easy to find most information on the web. Also, don’t think that just because I write on LDV that I will somehow start believing everything the coalition say, I will be doing exactly the same for them.
if you are going to criticise me well maybe get some things right.
the hips thing I did not say you were r saying it was a good thing , I said that what you said had some merit. (in that it had some truth to it as a reason for anupward spike in house prices which was the drift of what you said(and kno I am not going to trawl thgro for actual qoutes))
Re compareing to housing benefit this was actualy in direct rebutle of a point you made re justification of the payments being higher as such was not some randomness that was irrelavant.
Re an alternative to re basing downward the qoute you gave re justoification and used to say all partys…. actual leans very strongly towards an interpretation along the lines I suggested, failure to recognize this is either obtuseness or being as badat reading English as I am at writeing it.
Re blinkers this would be your assumption but not fact, my assertion is that Labour have actually a track record of supporting peeps faceing repo , SMI, mortgage rescue, courtadvisory, homelessness prevention etc that has had some impact, that this puts them in the camp of peeps that would not have slashed like this. Also lets face it when it comes to complexsollutions such as graduated taxcredits, child credit one could levelm the accusation that GB had a bit of a fetish on this and with sich a goute as you gave the open goal was for a complex syaterm.
Now as for objecting to capital being repaid what on earth is wrong with Capital being repaid by SMI?
really I would like you to explain whast the prob iswith a part of it paying Capital, becouse I do not see a problem here
btw at 6% (even if this pays money to capital) a £200000 mortgage (which is the upper limit for SMI) costs £230 per week now this compares favourably with houseing benefit where they are now talking of limiting to £400/week
if payment of capital happens it actually could be viewed as not that significant, upsides and downsidescould beargued for this, of the evils I would say it is a far lesser han a hard up familey not being able to put food ont table or not keeping up with the mortgage which will insome cases be a result of the action taken by this Gov, at best you can assert that Labour would do it, (I do not believe that you make the case) the fact however is that this gov hasdone it.