So what are we as Lib Dems going to say on the doorsteps to voters during the next General Election campaign to justify ourselves in reply to the ‘I voted Lib Dem to keep the Tories out’ challenge? I can imagine it will be a common enough question, especially in close Lib Dem/Conservative constituencies where we appealed to Labour voters to ‘lend us their vote’.
To me the answer seems quite simple. We reply to the voters “We asked you to vote Lib Dem to help keep the Tories out, and it worked. Thank you and well done.”
We don’t have a Tory government; we have a Coalition government – a very different thing. In voting for us in such large numbers, our supporters achieved their aim of preventing a Conservative majority. So that means no £1 million Inheritance Tax threshold, no fiddling with the tax system to promote marriage, no brushing the expenses scandal under the carpet. It means instead raising the level people start to pay income tax, having Lib Dems in the Treasury to help ensure fairness in the upcoming cuts, and the cleaning up of our political system. As a party, we must make it clear just how different things would have been if there had been a Tory majority, and the hugely important part our supporters played in preventing that.
But what then when Mr or Ms Hypothetical voter on the doorstep accuses us of jumping into bed with the Tories? Aren’t we guilty of ‘propping up’ the Tories and allowing them to launch a full-scale assault on the British State? Not at all, we reply. Despite out best efforts, the Conservatives still came first in the election. Once the votes were counted they clearly had the biggest mandate of all the political parties. I’m proud to think that as a party, we aren’t so arrogant as to ignore the views of the British electorate. We have respected the (albeit limited) mandate the Conservatives won, and this is reflected in the Coalition agreement. Labour take note: this is what grown-up politics looks like.
Some people accuse us of selling out. What did they expect though; that we’d refuse any power until we can go straight from opposition into government? For a third party committed to pluralism and voting reform, that’s not a serious outcome. What people mean when they say this is that they think we should only have joined with Labour instead. If they really believe we’d only ever join with the Labour party then why not just merge now and make everyone’s life that much more straightforward? Of course the reason we don’t is that we’ve got just as many policy disagreements with Labour as we do with the Conservatives. Labour tribalists still don’t seem to understand how we can work with other parties we disagree with. We still have much more work to do as a party in explaining how multi-party politics works, and how we’re just working with the Tories for the next 5 years, not merging with them (I’m looking at you here Nick – ask Vince if you’re unsure how to go about it).
The media still seem to be portraying us as somehow feeling guilty for allowing the Tories to form a government, or that we at least need to apologise for it. We need to refute this. During the election campaign Nick Clegg said clearly that it was up to the people to decide the shape of the next government – the Coalition reflects that decision. If we are planning on being part of future coalitions we need to be much more confident about recent events and be much more effective in framing the debate.
What do I mean by this? For starters, making it clear that if we hadn’t formed this coalition not only would we have been ignoring the electorate’s wishes; we’d also be betraying ourselves. As a party we are certain that a minority Conservative administration would’ve held another election at a time which suited them, and with the money to back up a second campaign, resulting in a Conservative majority. Cameron and the media’s scare-mongering during the campaign about the weakness of hung parliaments would have been proven correct. Not only that, but had we not formed a strong, stable government, we’d have been unable to take any definitive action over the economy; paralysis at precisely the time action was needed. We need to be proud of our recent actions; by their boldness and bravery in the face of short-term unpopularity in the polls.
Yes, we should say, it’s unfortunate we’re only in a coalition with the Conservatives and not in government on our own. Trust us, we’d prefer that too. But next time more people need to vote for us. We tried to get as many votes as possible at the expense of the Conservatives and Labour, but this time it wasn’t enough. So next time we’ll try harder. We did however do well enough to deny the Conservatives a majority, and we’re now in a coalition punching above our weight delivering on what we promised you. And if you’re unhappy about us being in a coalition with them then how about joining us and helping us do even better next time? Every extra vote will increase our bargaining power next time.
Of course, lending us votes will become a thing of the past if the AV referendum is successful. Instead we can be upfront and simply appeal to Labour (and Conservative) voters for their second preferences. But I guess the ball is in Ed’s court on that one. In the meantime however, we should never be embarrassed or feel like we’ve let down the people we appealed to for votes. The simple truth is that if it weren’t for the Lib Dems there would be a full-blown Conservative government. Tell that to the voters on the doorstep.
Laurie Eggleston is a Lib Dem activist in Southwark and on Twitter as @Laurie1984
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Back to Butterley Tunnel on the Cromford Canal
Are we programmed to die?
Fraser's weekly ward surgeries tonight! #dundeewestend
An online conspiracy?
Alex Hosking
graham
Daniel Stylianou
Craig Levene
Paul Barker
106 Comments
Excellent article Laurie, totally spot on.
Coalition politics means we have to be willing to enter in to a deal with either of the main parties. I’m sick of the assumption that we should only ever do a deal with Labour. If so, we may as well merge with them.
The key thing is having our list of libdem achievements in the coalition with us on the doorsteps.
Completely missed the mark. It isn’t that you let the Tories in having won votes on a stance of keeping them out- it’s that your party has *agreed* with the right-wing stance and according to your leader always did- voters just didn’t read between the lines enough.
It would be one thing to have allowed the Tories to form a government or joined them in coalition having clearly compromised- it’s quite another when your leader says he agreed with the Tories before the election and didn’t tell the voters.
Don’t think that you can get away with pretending the failings of this government are all because of the Tories. If your party had been honest- told people that you planned to cut early as the Tories did and said more openly that you wished to cut even deeper than the Tories to deal with the deficit- it wouldn’t have been a case of “Vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out”, it would have been a case of “Vote Tory to keep the Lib Dems out”.
It isn’t what you’re allowing only that is earning you polls in the low teens. It’s what you are yourselves.
Good article, helpful for anyone canvassing in 2015, methinks! And don’t feed the trolls everyone.
The problem is that you keep the Tories out but the policies in.
People were not against the Tories because of appearances but because of substance
Tory PM? Check
Tory Chancellor? Check
Tory Cuts? Check
It didnt work – in fact what we have is something even worse- we have things that were in NO party’s manifesto – such as abolishing PCTs.
I’d have more sympathy for this strongly-argued and generally convincing piece if the party hadn’t signed up to actively pass legislation that directly contradicts its stated reason for existing.
I don’t give a toss about cuts, so long as they are done for economic reasons and not for the purpose of social engineering. They were coming anyway. Labour whinging on this subject is pathetically unconvincing.
What I do care about is how little of the party’s core values the leadership were prepared to stand up for in certain areas when negotiating the coalition agreement. Not all areas, true – there are some notable wins. But some massive, massive betrayals in other areas.
The resigning issue for me was simple: the party is supposed to fight against the slavery of ignorance. It’s there in the preamble to the constitution. But its MPs are now committed to vote for an increase in faith schools, which exist primarily for the purpose of spreading ignorance, superstition and theocratic influence.
In a coalition agreement that explicitly included some areas where the party could decline to support the Conservative line, this was an unpardonable abandonment of integrity and – for me – the argument that utterlly destroys the thrust of this post.
@ John Ruddy
So you’d prefer to spend money on the bureaucrats in PCTs than on doctors and nurses? How very progressive of you.
excellent article
You might find real voters a lot more critical than hypothetical ones.
But you’ve convinced yourself so you can just ignore what anyone else says.
If only it was a very different thing. As has been pointed out numerous times the LibDems swapped concessions on a few Tory promises for handing over the keys of power to lunatics such as Osborne, Gove, Fox and Pickles. And with the latter the new localism means whitehall dictats on council papers, who they can chose as auditors, etc.
You’ve extracted a handful of concessions that are going to look very old in 5 years time. And in return you’ll have to go through the lobbies to support every wild-eyed neocon wet-dream, any invasion that Cameron wants and every cut that hits the poor 10 times harder than the rich. “Thanks for AV, but can I have my housing benefit back please?”
Sadly, it didn’t work here – but at least our new Tory MP is a “wet” and former Lib Dem…
Roy’s Claret Army,
“And in return you’ll have to go through the lobbies to support every wild-eyed neocon wet-dream, any invasion that Cameron wants and every cut that hits the poor 10 times harder than the rich.”
Hold on a minute… I thought that was what the Parliamentary Labour Party did?
Moral indignation from the Labour Party does sound a little hollow when one considers what Labour actually did in government only 6 months ago.
Labour has a problem which admits of no obvious solution. However much it benefits in the short-term from the unpopularity of austerity, our North American media will let rip on it as never before. Can Labour win without Murdoch? And what price Murdoch’s support? Those are the questions that Labour supporters need to ask themsevles. Slagging off the Liberal Democrats, who are actually doing something to rein the Tories in, might make them feel happy, but it won’t win them the next general election.
The thing is, everyone has their pet policies. If your pet policy has been given away it may be that others’ haven’t been?
For me, I have red lines like: The Human Rights Act, the BBC, a free-at-the-point-of-delivery health service, and a few others.
But eg for @Andy, whilst I agree with your interpretation, I do not see Free Schools as ‘the worst thing ever’ or fundamentally illiberal, I just see them as potentially illiberal (like current schools), absurd and silly. So I can give and take.
Bernard Salmon
What a simplistic argument! You’ve clearly never worked in any proper organisation. Bureaucracy (as you call it ) has to be done – if it is not done the whole so-called frontline service falls down. What I have seen as someone who has been a personnel person in organisations for quite a few years is that “the fashion” swings between having dedicated professional administrators to combining admin work with other professional (“frontline”) work and back again. Both ways of doing it have advantages and disadvantages, and it often depends on the skills and qualities of those involved how well it happens.
“We asked you to vote Lib Dem to help keep the Tories out, and it worked. Thank you and well done.”
“And if you’re unhappy about us being in a coalition with them then how about joining us and helping us do even better next time? Every extra vote will increase our bargaining power next time.”
Speaking as a voter and nt a hypothetical one, If any Lib Dem speaks to me in the patronising tones you are using I shall be very angry, it shows how you as an individual think of us, I hope it is not general. The vicious attacks on the poor you hardly mention, an increase in the tax threshold will NOT help the sick and unemployed and there is no ‘fairness’. I saw Clegg and Lib Dem cronies nodding and agreeing with the welfare attacks, perhaps he and they can take turns sitting on the back shelf of Cameron’s car. I will not vote for AV and IF it is does happen I will only use one vote as I REFUSE to put a vote for someone I do not want at all ie Tory, Labour and now Lib Dem. PR was one reason I voted for you. The Tories did not get a majority vote, they only received 36.48% of it, that is not a mandate for their extreme right policies propped up by the Liberal Democrats. The electorate, I think you will find wanted the Lib Dems to STOP the Tories (and/or Labour ) but you have fallen over backwards to help them. You ‘sold’ my vote, can I have a share in the Lib Dem ministers and Clegg’s gravy train in return? What hardship are they going to have?
You should feel embarrassed and you have let us down, you know it and we know it. There is now no hope and I feel desperate and terrified about what is to come.
“………………..and there was no one left to speak out for me.”
I too voted Lib Dem to get the Tories out, and have been doing so for at least 20 years, and have never managed it yet. The difference this time is that we have a Deputy Prime Minister and a hatful of Secretaries of State and junior ministers all ameliorating the right wing excesses of the party that would have been in government if we hadn’t voted Lib Dem. It isn’t rocket surgery!!
We could not have gone into coalition with Labour for a whole host of reasons. Firstly they didn’t offer a joint working coalition at all, and secondly they had a string of catastrophic failures to their name going back for most of 13 years which saw the gap between rich and poor widen, the prison population rise but the fear of crime increase, the number of children disenfranchised from society by a one size fits all education policy and a country on the verge of bankruptcy. The full list would fill several sides of A4.
I can’t believe the ignorance and naivety of the media, and I blame them for spreading this negative message. Perhaps it is me though who is naive in thinking that political journalists actually understand the language of politics. IT IS A COALITION – NOT A MERGER!
As I believe Shirley Williams said, we are not in bed with the Tories, we are sharing a room and have single beds.
What we do need though is a clear signal from Nick and the rest of the Parliamentary team as to which policies that the coalition are rolling out are Lib Dem (and that is a heck of a lot), which are basically Tory policies which are the ones we are having to accept as our share of the bargaining, and which are truly joint policies hammered out with consensus.
The bottom line though is that we are in this to provide stable government for a country brought to its knees by incompetence, and to finally introduce as many liberalising policies to the statute book as possible
“So you’d prefer to spend money on the bureaucrats in PCTs than on doctors and nurses? How very progressive of you.”
Perhaps the worst thing the coalition has achieved is getting Liberal Democrats into such a state that they’ll post simplistic, sub-tabloid garbage like this in an attempt to justify the party’s abandonment of the policy it fought the election on – even when there was absolutely no need to abandon it, because the Tories had accepted it as part of the coalition agreement.
Surely, Sesenco, the question about the Murdoch media is one for us ALL as politicos – how do we deal with them?
Henry – I agree that everyone has their own line in the sand. But basic points of principle should be on everyone’s list.
And for what it’s worth, I didn’t say free schools – they’re a silly indulgence of nose-in-the-air middle class snobs, like home schooling, and will prove a damp squib. I said faith schools, which are a different kettle of fish altogether.
Tim13,
“Surely, Sesenco, the question about the Murdoch media is one for us ALL as politicos – how do we deal with them?”
Yes, that is so. The difference between Labour and the Liberal Democrats on this point is that the former has willingly benefited from Murdoch’s support, while the latter has never had it.
Let’s get this myth out of the way- “The Lib Dems are reining the Tories in”.
No you are not. Let’s look at cuts-
The Tories wanted to deal with the deficit via an 80/20 split between cuts and tax rises starting immediately.
Labour wanted to deal with the deficit via a 66/33 split between cuts and tax rises deferred until stability was assured.
The Lib Dems wanted to deal with the deficit via a 100/0 split between cuts and tax rises apparently deferred until stability was assured but secretly they wanted to start immediately.
The actual figures for cuts versus tax rises is supposed to be around 77/23. So not a million miles away from the Tories position and in the wrong direction to what Nick Clegg wanted.
Anne – I too feel that some of the tone of this article is slightly patronising and I also have concerns about spending cuts. However, you completely invalidate your argument by quoting Martin Niemöller at the end of your comment. The Conservatives may be many things but to compare spending cuts to the actions of the Nazis is highly offensive.
Actually Mike, neither Cameron nor Clegg (nor anyone else outside the Labour demolition squad) knew just how bad the deficit was going to be. Labour lied in public, went on a disgraceful spending spree using money they didn’t have and saddling present and future generations with massive debts.
Both parties of coalition had to dramatically rethink their strategy. It has already had the approval of most authorities and now the IMF (agreed not my -nor yours I suspect – favourite body). The sooner the economy turns the corner the sooner the threat of job cuts will shrink and the ability of the coalition to roll out ‘cut ameliorating benefits to the lower paid’ will increase.
Taking thousands out of tax was a Lib Dem policy. The Tories may have nicked it for the election but you can bet your bottom dollar that they would have dropped it immediately if it hadn’t been for the strong Lib Dem negotiating team!
@Sesenco
“Slagging off the Liberal Democrats, who are actually doing something to rein the Tories in”
In principle I agree but in practice Nick Clegg doesn’t give me the impression he is doing much reining In – in fact, unfortunately, it would be difficult to tell him apart from the Tory front bench. Incidentally Murdoch is a disgrace and it is a sad commentary on our democracy that a foreign national like him has such an impact in this country. Vince will win brownie points with me if he refers the 100% Sky takeover to the competition commission as I understand he has been advised to do by his officials (or will Tory pressure be brought to bear and he will duck the opportunity ?)
Perhaps Labour and the Lib Dems could get together and bring in laws relating to the foreign ownership of the media as they have in the USA & France. Labour’s cosying up to Murdoch was shameful but somewhat understandable given the power he wields. His influence in the UK is a national disgrace.
@David Rickard: The income tax threshold rise is regressive. Less then 10% of the cost goes to the poorest 20% of the population. The top 50% get more than 50% of the cost. Etc, etc. It isn’t a good policy.
http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/05/clegg%E2%80%99s-10k-tax-allowance-is-no-tory-concession-its-a-tory-dream/
“Some 70% of the benefit goes to the top half of society. And only £1 billion of the £17 billion cost – just 6% of the total – actually goes on the often-stated aim of “lifting those on low incomes out of tax”.”
As for the deficit- that’s not true, that’s a line. First of all, Nick Clegg has explicitly said that he had changed his view on the timing before the election, on TV in an interview with Nick Robinson. They didn’t change their plans, they just mislead the voters beforehand.
They and the Tories always planned to say “things were much worse than thought”, no matter what happened. Read this- http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6080418/osbornes-headache.thtml
“The below chart sums up the extraordinary announcement from the Office for Budget Responsibility. George Osborne did his best to maintain the “things are worse than we thought” line but the reverse is true. Unemployment, inflation, the deficit – everything is better than not only the Treasury forecast but better than the market had been preparing for.”
@Andy: So the Lib Dems have reined the Tories in by persuading them to jump in a time machine and vote against it have they? How is that relevent at all?
“So you’d prefer to spend money on the bureaucrats in PCTs than on doctors and nurses? How very progressive of you.”
I just want to second what Anthony has said: Bernard – this is really simplistic stuff. Worthy of a Daily Mail-inspired rant but not LDV.
When you talk about ‘bureaucrats’ – are you even aware that PCTs fund a range of services at the local level that are now at risk because they are being abolished. Among many other things, they are major funders of third-sector services like Citizen’s Advice Bureaux. Together with cuts to local authority budgets these are now being squeezed out of existence at a time when they are most needed. PCTs also co-ordinate and fund health awareness campaigns and prevention programmes.
All these things will be de-prioritised – even abandoned – under a GP-led commissioning system. Hardly consistent with the Big Society rhetoric, not progressive – and not very smart either.
“Actually Mike, neither Cameron nor Clegg (nor anyone else outside the Labour demolition squad) knew just how bad the deficit was going to be.
…
Both parties of coalition had to dramatically rethink their strategy.”
But of course, Nick Clegg now claims he _didn’t_ have to rethink his position on the timing of cuts. He had changed his mind before the election, but kept pushing the old policy in public. Or so he says now.
To be fair, at one they did go through a period of saying they changed their minds because they didn’t realise how bad things really were. Also because of what happened in the markets the day after the election. It is certainly difficult to keep track of all the different stories.
Mike, you’re dancing on the head of a pin. Which is fine until you lose it and sit down suddenly.
Cuts aren’t the only important thing, as any Iraqi civilian will tell you.
Grow up Andy. That would only be relevent if Labour and the Tories were planning on invading Iraq again but the Lib Dems had stopped it. Do I have to remind you that isn’t the case?
@ Bernard
In case you hadnt noticed, neither party in Government said they wanted to abolish PCTs in their Manifestos – the tories even said that there had already been too much re-organising in the NHS and it had to stop!
As for the buracrats in the PCTs, their jobs will still have to be done, they will just be done by firms of private consultants and accoutants and managers, becuase, unless they’ve been hiding in my Doctors surgery, GPs dont have this expertiese and resources at the moment.
@ John Ruddy: “In case you hadnt noticed, neither party in Government said they wanted to abolish PCTs in their Manifestos”
Er, yes, we did: “Empowering local communities to improve health services through elected Local Health Boards, which will take over the role of Primary Care Trust boards in commissioning care for local people”
P. 43, Lib Dem manifesto 2010
Yeah those elected Local Health Boards sure will be a step in the right direction.
….
Oh.
“Er, yes, we did: “Empowering local communities to improve health services through elected Local Health Boards, which will take over the role of Primary Care Trust boards in commissioning care for local people””
How inane can these comments get?
The Lib Dem manifesto provided for elected boards to fulfil the current role of PCTs in commissioning NHS care. And the coalition agreement actually provided for the introduction of elected representatives on PCTs. You could have quoted that as one of your triumphs in getting Lib Dem policies adopted by the government!
But then all that was dropped – with the agreement of the Liberal Democrats – in favour of abolishing the PCTs and handing over their commissioning powers to GPs. God only knows why.
Do you think quoting the manifesto commitment that was dropped makes what happened look better?
“So that means no £1 million Inheritance Tax threshold, no fiddling with the tax system to promote marriage,”
Er, both those policies are specifically included in the coalition agreement!! At best, they have been delayed for a short while. Inheritance tax will be cut once the £10K threshold is reached, while the Lib Dems have agreed to abstain from a vote on tax breaks for married couples – hardly the kind of veto you claim.
Anna
“However, you completely invalidate your argument by quoting Martin Niemöller at the end of your comment. The Conservatives may be many things but to compare spending cuts to the actions of the Nazis is highly offensive”.
It did not invalidate my argument at all.
The quote was to emphasise the point that there is NO main political party that will help the poor, disadvantaged and disabled. All three main parties are on the ‘scrounger’ bandwagon. The first group that the Nazis attacked were the disabled, they softened up the population first. (Read Daily Mail now?). The first group attacked by the coalition following on from Labour policy were the? yes, the sick and disabled. What group will be next in the firing line? The similarities are too chilling and that is why I used it. You may not like the quote I used but if we are not very vigilant it could happen again, do not bury your head in the sand. Try reading on the disabled forums, people are absolutely terrified.
We have reason to fear, perhaps you are safe and secure, or think you are.
sesenco,”reining the tories in” tell that tale on the doorsteps in five years time and i think you will get more than egg on your face. you just dont get it do you the tories we all know are butchers , but this time it was you who handed them the hatchet, and people wont forget that, maybe you should do a bit of canvasing in the steets tommorow and find out for yourself, believe me your party is in for one hell of a big shock and no i am not in the labour or tory gang, most folk consider your party leader a snakeoil salesman and a blaggard
Anna
As an afterthought, why did you only mention the Conservatives? They are fully backed by the Lib dems, not trying to distance are you?
“… most folk consider your party leader a snakeoil salesman and a blaggard”
Surely “blagger”?
Adopting such a patronising tone with actual voters would be electoral suicide.
@Andy – I know, but faith schools, alas, already existed – we’ll sort it out one day.
@Anne – I disagree with you, and I think you took unnecessary offence at the tone of the article (which I agree may sound a little patronising). There are many things that are difficult to dis-entangle in what you have said, but many benefits, those for the elderly, some child payments etc… are increasinf, and there are many things people on low incomes will benefit from.
I do agree with some of your points though, coalition isn’t easy, and I happily distance myself from the Conservative elements of the coalition government policy. My realy gripe at the moment – and you touched on it with your perception of Clegg nodding along to welfare reforms – is that there isn’t room enough for real debate between LD and Con secretaries of state in public. I still strongly feel the need for Cabinet Collective Responsibility rules to be updated to deal with coalitions of very philosophically different parties.
The arrogance of this article, and some of the Lib Dem comments, is astonishing. If anyone wants a good reason to not vote for the Lib Dems, this sort of smug boasting is surely it.
PCTs merely bureaucrats!? There are thousands of doctors and nurses working in PCTs with years of commisioning experience, all of which will be lost to fly-by-nights like Capita and BUPA (along with creating several conflicts of interests). PCTs provide direct funding for domicially care, residential care for elderly, infirm and vulnerable – and so on – not likely to be a priority for the private commissioning consortia is it?
If the Libs actually cared (or even knew) about these services, these comments would not appear.
Henry,
Perhaps you will explain the’many things’ people on low incomes wil benefit from? The ones forced out of their homes due to the cut in housing benefit? Many of these work but landlords are charging extortionate rents especially in London and they do not earn enough to pay the rent. The sick and disabled forced through ESA ‘medicals’ conducted by doctors and sometimes nurses who judge after half an hour to an hour on the condition of the individual. They just tick boxes and there is nowhere for the individual to explain their condition, consultants and GP’s are ignored. The government will not release the information on the exact criteria that ATOS are paid or how much yet two ATOS representatives sit on the DWP body that decides on ESA.
How do the unemployed and the many thousands about to be made unemployed benefit? We have not yet learned where further cuts will be made in welfare as Osborne has indicated they will.
I remain astonished at the way many commenters appear to believe that they’ll wake up on Oct 21st in a hellish wasteland populated by wicked Thatcherite demons purposely torturing the most vulnerable in our society. This is perhaps best examplified by Anne’s insistence that we’re on course for a second holocaust because disability benefits are being cut. From this point of view, the holocaust amounted to nothing more than leaving Jewish people £10 a week less well off; Nazism clearly being a crusade against benefit cheats.
Let’s be clear. The poor and vulnerable are going to be impacted by the cuts. They always are when Government spending is cut. And life is going to be harder for them. Life would’ve been harder for them under Labour, too. But we are not going to wake up on October 21st to find old ladies being pushed out into the street, or families made homeless – the local authority duty of housing provision will remain. The persons being impacted by the changes to disability assessment will include people who do require more provision than they are awarded – but this is the inverse of what we had previously, when some people received more provision than they required. The parties at fault here are those who received more than they needed – and those who failed to report them when they found this out. They created a media climate which allowed this to happen – not the Coalition.
But my leaflet said vote Lib Dem and stop Tory cuts
I did
now my Lib Dem MP is in the Cabinet and making Tory cuts
Did I miss something
Yes. He lied.
Good article. Ignore the Labour trolls – they are just having a bad day because their Miliband-Dallas saga has wrecked their entire party conference!
Crikey, wasn’t expecting quite so many responses. Apologies for not replying to them all, but don’t want to be here all night!
I’ll focus on talking to the Lib Dems (what with LDV being ‘our place to talk’ and all), as this article was aimed solely at them. Take on board point about being seen to be patronising – but I’m paraphrasing and simplifying the voter ‘conversation’ for the sake of being concise. The tone is slightly tongue-in-cheek and aimed at all those Lib Dem activists who understand what I’m saying as they’ve shared those experiences on countless doorsteps. If you were offended by the tone then the message probably wasn’t intended for you!
My point is that we always need to remember that the electorate dealt us the hand we had to play, and we’ve done damn well given that hand.
I think Nick is still learning how to go about the coalition; he still talks too often like there’s a new ‘coalition party’ for example, so keen is he to prove coalitions can deliver strong viable governments. But he’s getting better and thankfully he’s got a few years to perfect his tone yet. Personally he needs to stop looking quite so at home and rediscover that outsider status he used to have. I think once the coalition settles down after a few years he will be more confident to be more radical again.
Imagine for one moment though; if we hadn’t formed the coalition… a minority Tory government would have ground along, delaying any real measures causing god-knows-what consequences for the economy. They’d have called another election – probably around now – which I am convinced they would’ve won outright. How then would we as Lib Dems feel sitting back watching the Conservatives go full throttle, as Cameron is forced to bend to the right of his party instead of us, knowing that we could have done something to to ameliorate the consequences? Knowing also that we’d turned down the chance to prove to the country that coalitions do work. We’re all in politics to try and make a positive difference. For all Labour activists cry ‘betrayal!’, anyone would do the same, given the opportunity to, as Simon put it ‘be on the pitch and in the game’. Maybe it’s different for Labour, who know they can sit back and eventually it’ll be their turn again – but we don’t have that luxury.
Yes we will lose fights with the Conservatives along the way and lots of their policies will get through, but at least we’ll have those fights, and we’ll also win some. As much as it annoys me, the Conservatives got the most votes. Labour don’t seem to have realised this yet, but this is the reality we have now set to work in.
Anne
I will not vote for AV and IF it is does happen I will only use one vote as I REFUSE to put a vote for someone I do not want at all ie Tory, Labour and now Lib Dem. PR was one reason I voted for you. The Tories did not get a majority vote, they only received 36.48% of it, that is not a mandate for their extreme right policies propped up by the Liberal Democrats.
Yes, but both the Tories and the Labour Party support the system which gave the Tories so much power on 36.48% of the vote. Both the Tories and the Labour Party oppose proportional representation explicitly because they say it is better to have a system which distorts representation in favour of the largest party and against third parties. Both the Tories and the Labour Party say that is better because it makes coaliion government less likely, they say it is better to have a government of just one party which is given an overall majority of the seats in Parliament, thanks to the system they support, even if it did not have overall majority support in the country.
So what right have Labour to complain? The Conservatives won more votes than Labour, so surely by Labour’s logic in its oppostion to proportional representation, we should have a ory government, with the representation of the Tories twisted upwards to secure it. And you Anne now declare that YOU support that system as well, that you would vote against a change to it in a referendum. Therefore Anne, YOU are the one who is supporting Tory government. You should rejoice – you have what you want in your opposition to electoral reform, and your only regret surely should be that it is not a pure Tory government.
@Adam Bell: Oh yes, the poor coalition that has no choice but to cut as deep and quickly as it is… it’s not like George Osborne’s own election target would have been met under Labour’s plans anyway anyway… (actually… http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/6080418/osbornes-headache.thtml). It’s not like these are cuts intended to be permanent… (well…http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/03/david-cameron-public-sector-cuts-permanent). It’s not like the Lib Dems can be blamed for the extra severity of the cuts… (although… http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5831523/clegg-heir-to-thatcher.thtml). It’s not like the cuts and tax rises are being raised regressively… (errr…. http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/08/poorest-families-budget-cuts)
Nope, innocent of all charges. The coalition will give us lucky Panglosses the best of all possible worlds
As a real voter who voted LIbDems for several years, let me tell you that your patronising twaddle is not going to have any effect on me. I have now joined the Labour Party as I feel betrayed by Nick Clegg and your party.
@Mathew Huntbach: Don’t be ridiculous. If you’re going to whinge at Labour not supporting PR then at least give Labour’s reasons for opposing PR rather than inventing your own to make them sound especially bad. I support PR, but that’s no way to win people over. It will never pass without Labour support and you don’t convince people by pretending they’ve said otherwise than what they have.
@Laurie Eggleston: You should have said this was a thread only for Lib Dems. You shouldn’t have this website’s blogposts appear on the non-party-political PoliticsHome. And don’t talk about what you imagine Labour thinks if you don’t feel up to addressing what Labour actually says. You don’t have to talk of theoretical Labour activists crying “betrayal”- you’ve got one right here with his own reasons for thinking you’ve sold out that you’ve chosen not to address.
And it’s a joke for you to make an article about how to speak to non-Lib Dems and then ignore any non-Lib Dem feedback just because it’s negative.
Mike (The Labour one)
Don’t be ridiculous. If you’re going to whinge at Labour not supporting PR then at least give Labour’s reasons for opposing PR rather than inventing your own to make them sound especially bad.
Where am I wrong? The argument I am always hearing against proportional representation is that it is bad because it makes coalition government much more likely and single party government very unlikely. I hear it just as much from Labour as from the Tories. Labour, for obvious reasons, have gone a bit quiet on it now, but it’s what they were saying loudly when the current system gave them a majority. So that is what I was saying – Labour supports the current electoral system because it wants politics just to be Labour v. Tories. If things were Labour’s way, and there were no LibDems, we would have a majority Tory government now anyway.
If we’d had a more proportional system, there would be many fewer Tories and many more LibDems. The result would have been that the LibDems would have had much more negotiating power in the coalition, and that a Labour-LibDem coalition would have been a possibility. The electoral system which the Labour Party supports ruled that out because it twisted LibDem representation down and it twisted Tory representation up. The twisting was such that Labour and LibDems together did not have a majority of seats, despite having a majority of votes, so a Labour-LibDem coalition was ruled out.
Labour tribalists are never worth responding to. As featured in the comments so far, to them, anything other than a majority Labour government is the end of the world and must involve betrayal on someone’s part, and anything which involves spending less public money is equivalent to the Nazis.
Labour did not win enough seats in May to form any sort of government. They did not have a good leader, they did not fight a good campaign and they did not have a good record in government (before they all start shouting, no I do not mean that everything Labour did was bad, but I do mean that the good things they did, like Sure Start and human rights, were by the end outweighed by the bad – like Iraq, ID cards, detention without charge, being relaxed about the filthy rich). That they blame the Lib Dems for teverything comes purely from the fact that blaming someone else is easier than facing up to reality. They need to get a grip and realise that the Tories are the real enemy. Even Ed Miliband has finally realised that.
@Mathew Huntbach: Find me a senior Labour figure saying that they support FPTP *because* it is better to have a system that “distorts representation in favour of the largest party and against third parties.”
Actual Labour problems with FPTP are much more nuanced. Anti-coalition stuff does come into it but for a good reason- because coalitions give the Nick Cleggs of this world a chance to lie to the electorate about what they intend and then enact their real wishes under the guise of compromise with another party.
Read this, from Tom Harris: http://www.tomharris.org.uk/2010/05/09/first-past-the-post-is-a-rubbish-electoral-system/
I heavily disagree with his stance but to attribute malignant motives to supporters of parties whose arguments you’ve evidently never bothered to read isn’t helpful.
Laurie
My point is that we always need to remember that the electorate dealt us the hand we had to play, and we’ve done damn well given that hand.
No, it has been played appallingly badly by our leaders.
You see, Laurie, I have argued that the coalition was the only realistic outcome following the May 2010 election result, but I am NOT going to be twisted by our leaders to go on from that and say that means I must agree with what they have done since.
At best, they are very stupid – they just can’t see that this triumphalists “Look we are in government, isn’t that a good thing?” doesn’t come across as they suppose it does – that the LibDems are a serious force because they hold these posts, instead it comes across as the LibDems are people deseparate for power so they’d do anything to get it.
At worst, they actually have been captured and twisted into believing in Conservatism. This I fear is particularly so with Nick Clegg, a man who always seemed to give the impression that he’d go along with whatever it was the people around him were saying that would make him look good in theri company.
I think it’s clear that we have not got much out of this coalition. Its central policy direction is that of the Conservative Party, very much so. A few LibDemish things have been thrown at us, but they are almost all technical things, of interest to intellectual ideological upper middle class liberals, but of little interest to the bulk of the population. So, trumpeting these as huge triumphs just makes it sound worse to most people in this country who don’t see them as such.
I think our leaders ought to be honest and admit – we are in a situation where our influence is very limited, we are getting a few little things out of it that’s all, it’s not what we would be doing if we were the biggest party, but it is what the people voted for – Tory voters because they voted Tory, Labour voters because they voted for a party which supports the electoral system which twisted the Tory vote upwards and gave then this power – so if you don’t like it, don’t vote Tory/Labour next time. We had to go into it, firstly to get this little bit out of it, secondly because it was clear our country would suffer if government was uncertain due to a minority government.
Also, no, a Lib-Lab coalition was never going to happen. Guido Fawkes got hold of coalition documents showing it to be done and dusted far earlier than we’ve been told, Nick Clegg’s silly argument on TV was that he couldn’t work with Gordon Brown- so he had to go- and then because Gordon Brown decided to go there was not yet a new leader to bargain with so it was impossible! And the Lib Dems were making early cuts a condition in talks with Labour, which they must have known Labour wouldn’t agree to.
Nick Clegg choosing to say he’d favour the largest party was just to soften the Lib Dems up for when he decided to return to the Tory fold.
And I don’t want more Lib Dem negotiating power in the coalition. I don’t want it more likely that Nick Clegg would get his way and be able to push through cuts far deeper than the Tories comprising 100% of the deficit rather than the Tories’ 80%.
Mike (The Labour One)
Anti-coalition stuff does come into it but for a good reason- because coalitions give the Nick Cleggs of this world a chance to lie to the electorate about what they intend and then enact their real wishes under the guise of compromise with another party.
Yes, and that is why you support an electoral system which twists the representation of the largest party upwards to make this less likely to happen.
Sorry Mike, but I am just telling the truth. You say you oppose coalitions, so your alternative is a government of just one party, whichever is the party with the largest number of votes regardless of whether it has an actual overall majority of votes. First past the post under the UK’s geography has tended to give just that and you think that is a good thing. If you don’t think it’s a good thing, then instead you think coalitions are a good thing, but you said you don’t. Therefore to you, the result you REALLY wanted from the May 2010, assuming you are a democrat, so accept what the people voted for, is a Conservative Party majority government, so then there is none of this nasty coalition stuff which you hate so much. Although you didn’t get that, Nick Clegg’s weak leadership has almost given it to you, so shouldn’t you be rejoicing? Wouldn’t it be much worse if despite more people voting Tory than any other party, the little LibDem party thwarted them out of what they wanted by being tougher in negotiation? Wouldn’t that be all that horrible nasty coalition compromise you so hate?
@Mathew Huntbach: Please, please, please- read what I’ve written.
“I support PR, but that’s no way to win people over.”
“I heavily disagree with his stance but to attribute malignant motives to supporters of parties whose arguments you’ve evidently never bothered to read isn’t helpful.”
Tom Harris has decent, logical reasons for opposing FPTP. If you really want to win the AV referendum, it is the actual arguments you’re going to have to face. There’s no point prepping on arguments against the most rubbish FPTP support you can imagine and then find that the opponents you’ve been demonising for maliciously wanting to fiddle the electoral system because apparently they’re just evil have actual logical arguments in favour of FPTP that you’ll have no idea how to contend with.
*supporting FPTP that should read concerning Tom Harris.
Robert Ascal,
“sesenco,”reining the tories in” tell that tale on the doorsteps in five years time and i think you will get more than egg on your face. you just dont get it do you the tories we all know are butchers , but this time it was you who handed them the hatchet, and people wont forget that, maybe you should do a bit of canvasing in the steets tommorow and find out for yourself, believe me your party is in for one hell of a big shock and no i am not in the labour or tory gang, most folk consider your party leader a snakeoil salesman and a blaggard”
Who do you imagine you are? The Oracle of Delphi? What gives you these miraculous powers that enable you to say with certainty what will happen in five years time and to know what “most folk” think?
@Mike
You’ve badly misunderstood my point, which is hardly surprising for a Labour tribalist determined to disagree with anything Lib Dems say, regardless of what it is. The Tory attack on ‘scroungers’ as a reason to cut welfare was enabled by scroungers actually existing. This is hardly earth-shattering stuff. Have you ever met someone who was claiming more on benefits than they were seemingly entitled to?
Laurie – the facts are laid bare.
But first – my position. I agree with the LDs going into Coalition with the Tories. I do not think a Lib-Lab pact would have worked. I am not opposed to Coalition. I voted LD at the May election. I have lived under Coalition in Germany.
However – what Clegg has done since the outcome is nothing short of criminal. He has sold your party out. He has elected to paint the agreement as a complete alignment between the two parties. He has been asked repeatedly to define where the LDs differ from the Tories – and apart from Trident he answers ‘nowhere’. Rather than present it as a marriage of convenience – he has painted it as a marriage of obsession. There is no contrast (as in other Coalitions), there is no public debate (as in other Coalitions), there is no political or idealogical discussion (as in other Coalitions). Clegg made numerous policy promises which he has ditched as soon as he was in power.
The LDs have not softened the Tory government. Far from it. Their support allows Cameron to act as if he has a 1997-style majority. Yes the LDs have got some policies on the table – but they are completely drowned out by Cameron’s Turbo-Thatcherite dogma. If an ‘average’ member of the public was asked “What have the Lib Dems done for you” – do you really believe that the answer would be “banned private clamping companies”?
You have let a lot of people down. I am one. I too joined the Labour Party recently. To continually ignore the numbers joining Labour is suicide.
@Adam Bell: Of course, but that’s not a good excuse. And I certainly did get your point the first time- it’s hardly sophisticated. I suppose you can explain away the war on Terror by the fact that terrorists also exist?
The government has to take responsibility for its own actions. The line that it’s everybody elses fault, that forces out of the coalition’s control such as the existence of dishonest claimants, don’t actually give the coalition a blank cheque to undermine the welfare state. If a policy is wrong, then it is wrong. To suggest it isn’t the government’s responsibility when they have a choice is like the battered spouse being blamed for “asking for it”.
> My point is that we always need to remember that the electorate dealt us the hand we had to play
The electorate does not act in a vacuum. If you wanted a changed result, are you willing to make changes to policy and personnel to obtain it? It is easy to blame the electorate, too easy.
Rather than do outreach and change policy to enthuse people, the conservative choice was made to stick with the status quo. People need to see that the Lib Dems mean what they say. The impression for me is that Lib Dems are blind to the failings of the party and thus unwilling to do anything about them.
Adam Bell wrote
The Tory attack on ‘scroungers’ as a reason to cut welfare was enabled by scroungers actually existing.
Yes I agree with you, scroungers do exist, always have and probably always will to some extent and it’s government’s job (whoever they are) to limit them. however when Government says it’s going to take 20% of people off disability benefits and the DWP own figures say only 1% are claiming falsely makes me wonder just what their motivation is and what will happen to the 19% left in the nightmare of being unemployable but faced with the Tory ‘punishment’ of benefit cuts for being unemployed (10% HB after one year, penalties ….)
“…Well done. Thank You.”
Good god. What awful, patronising nonsense. Labour activists will be praying you come out with that sort of guff on the doorstep.
@ Cuse
Your position/views in your last post exactly matches my own, I too am considering leaving the party after a lifetime of support and joining Labour
@Mike;
Using the phrase ‘undermine the welfare state’ rather reduces your argument to the pathetic scaremongering practiced by Anne above. I don’t know how many times I’m going to have to say this to ardent Labourites who think the world is ending, but the welfare state is not going to be taken away. Arguing otherwise is ridiculous paranoia, which is a shame as your point about responsibility does stand. It’s just not as strong as you seem to believe it is in the context.
@Nige:
Source for that claim, please.
Adam Bell.
Mike is big and hairy enough to stand up for himself but… What an incredibly tribal response.
To 20% of the population, the welfare state is ending. How is that an equitable response to 1% of the claimants allegedly being scroungers?
As a LibDem supporter I was fervently hoping that in entering in to coalition with the tories the party would act as a restraining influence, in the way the blog post suggests. But try as I might I find it difficult to say that it is clear that has happened to any signiificant extent. Sure there have been libdem policies adopted but they are often slightly technical things primarily of interest to politicos (which doesn’t mean they are not important and valuable). Crucially all the headline grabbing policies that are the sort of thing that can win or lose elections are straight out of the turbo-Thatcherism playbook. The giveaway was in the way the the tories described the coalition agreement – the conservative manifesto with the best of the libdem manifesto. By ‘best’ they meant things we agreed with anyway. The fact the govt appears to have swung further to the right since then just reinforces this impression. Nick Clegg has gone unnecessrily far, in my view, in seeking to appease his new tory chums. Or at leas
@Adam Bell: Rubbish, you just want to seize on anything to get out of the way don’t you? Don’t put words in my mouth. If you can find a post by myself where I’ve said that the coalition will completely dismantle the welfare state then quote it. It will certainly be undermined, as I said.
Oops – ‘Or at least in public’ that should have finished.
As for the 20% cuts in the cost of Disability Living Allowance versus 1% estimated dishonest claimants, here are those sources-
http://www.touchstoneblog.org.uk/2010/06/budget-proposes-cutting-dla-for-20-per-cent-of-claimants/
I know Lib Dems on this website think trade unionists are monsters, but it’s quoting the coalition’s budget so you won’t need to trust any commoners.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd2/dlanbr.asp
The estimate of the number of frauds is 1% when rounded up.
Mike Hancock said: “We were not consulted about this. It’s a shock to us, and it’s intolerable. This is not what coalitions are supposed to be about – coalitions are supposed to be about working together.
“I was not elected to target the poor and the weakest in society. There’s going to be some resistance to this.”
Are you allowed to think it’s bad now that you know there are Lib Dems against it too?
Adam Bell
source for that claim, please
” Critics also point out that the actual level of fraud is comparatively small. Only about 1% of all benefits are fraudulently claimed. Indeed more money is lost through administrative error than benefit fraud. ”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10922261
90 percent of disabled people going to current medical assessments are being informed they are fit for work (look it up)
Do the math
1 percent fraudulent and shouldn’t be claiming. That means 99 percent are telling the truth and are in reality, ‘unfit to work’.
Yet 90 percent of these people, 89 percent incorrectly, are being told by an agency that despite the fact that medical professionals with years of training have deemed them unfit for work. They will ignore such evidence and instead base their extremely experienced (sarcasm) decision on questions like “can you set an alarm clock?”
Funny but there isn’t even an option to say “No” .
The 10 percent of housing benefit cut will affect all unemployed people after 12 months , instantly making many of them homeless. This policy was announced in the budget.
The pathetic scaremongering practiced by Anne above is no less real just because you dismiss it with your head in the sand.
Mike (The Labour One)
Tom Harris has decent, logical reasons for opposing FPTP. If you really want to win the AV referendum, it is the actual arguments you’re going to have to face. There’s no point prepping on arguments against the most rubbish FPTP support you can imagine and then find that the opponents you’ve been demonising for maliciously wanting to fiddle the electoral system because apparently they’re just evil have actual logical arguments in favour of FPTP that you’ll have no idea how to contend with.
AV isn’t proportional representation. Because it’s a “only local majorities get representation” system, just like FPTP, it has the same twisting of representation in favour of 1) the largest parties and 2) small but concentrated regional parties e.g. the Northern Irish ones.
I think I am being quite fair. The biggest argument that gets put against switching from FPTP to another system is that FPTP has generally given single-party government in the UK, and that’s considered a good thing. All I am doing is amplifying that argument by spelling out exactly what it means.
The argument for AV is another matter, but I only wish it were discussed rather than using a supposed discussion on it to discuss anything else but. This “Anne” I replied to was a good example, and I was prompted to reply to her by the ludicrous nature of what she was saying. She was saying she would vote “No” in the referendum on AV not because of what AV was or was not, but in order to say “yah booh sucks” to the Liberal Democrats. This was particularly ludicrous because the Liberal Democrats were placed in this unfortunate position of having little negotiating power in the coalition by the electoral system which weakened their power and strengthened that of the Tories, yet in order to protest about that, “Anne” wanted to vote in favour of that system. That’s a bit like saying “I so hate the way Labour has become right-wing under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that I’m going to vote Conservative even though the Conservatives are even more right wing”.
Unfortunately, because this is a technical issue which involves – shock, a little bit of mathematics – the British people probably will all vote in the referendum like Anne, not on AV, but on whatever the commentariat, which consists largely of innumerate arts graduates, make out this referendum is about. So it will probably end up being interpreted as “Vote no if you hate Nick Clegg”. In which case, there’s going to be a BIG “no” vote, isn’t there? I certainly have seen almost no discussion on it which is actually on what AV is rather than on more superficial issues. The only anti-AV article I saw which remotely actually tackled the mechanics was by the Tory MP leading the anti-AV campaign, and it was embarrassingly innumerate and illogical. But I fear I am on a loser if I place my trust in the British people being able to appreciate a mathematical argument, or being able to see beyond bad maths backed by the big money of the Tories.
Mike (The Labour One)
Also, no, a Lib-Lab coalition was never going to happen. Guido Fawkes got hold of coalition documents showing it to be done and dusted far earlier than we’ve been told, Nick Clegg’s silly argument on TV was that he couldn’t work with Gordon Brown- so he had to go- and then because Gordon Brown decided to go there was not yet a new leader to bargain with so it was impossible!
There are the same MPs now as there were in May 2010. So everything that applied about viable coalitions then applied now. If a Labour-LibDem coalition was viable then it is just as viable now. So if Labour are moaning about the LibDems not forming a coalition with them, there is a simple solution – offer one. If they can’t, then it is an admission they couldn’t in May 2010.
@Matthew Huntbach: Just read what I’ve written. I’m not going to vote “no” in the referendum. The problem is that by misrepresenting the people who support FPTP- which you did, you didn’t read my posts past the first line leading to your embarrassing rant so I’m certain you won’t have actually read the reasons given by Tom Harris for supporting FPTP- you make winning that referendum less likely.
I have the horrible feeling that I’ll be active out in support of AV, trying to convince people that Yes is the right choice, when the Lib Dems march up and harangue the floating voter for not being born a PR convert and accusing them of supporting FPTP for immoral reasons that you’ve imagined.
You’re not amplifying any argument. The idea that coalition government leads to government being formed through secret talks between a dozen or so leading politicians means manifestos don’t matter. Politicians can campaign as they like, argue in secret for the opposite, and enter government pretending to have compromised. All manifestos will be tailored to provide filler to discard in exchange for other policies, and all manifestos will leave out policies they agree with so they can let the other party bargain them into agreeing. The fact is that PR isn’t a perfect system, that’s just one example.
So when you say things like “Labour don’t support PR because they think coalition government is bad” you’re wrong. That’s a strawman. One of the points made by Tom Harris is that parties are already coalitions and that it isn’t the coalition part of it that he dislikes. He says this explicitly.
You say you’ve only seen one anti-AV article and it was by a Tory. I know that because I read your post (all the way through!) If you’d start reading my posts all the way through you might have found the anti-AV article I posted by Labour MP Tom Harris.
The referendum on AV, and any future referendum on PR, will not be won by ignoring the reasons given by people who don’t agree and then attacking the reasons you imagine they support FPTP for.
Thank You to those above who provided the sources, saved me the job
@ Adam Bell – Hope that convinces you, at least in part, of the wickedness of this welfare ‘reform’, there is no fairness involved, no light at the end of the tunnel for those caught in this ‘benefit trap’, just grinding poverty.
This issue alone is something I once believed all LibDems would of been up in arms over, not colluding in for gods sake.
Looks like I was wrong.
@Matthew Huntbach: Seriously. Start reading what people write. Don’t just see the “Labour” in my name, copy my text without reading it, and then try and guess what it says.
“Also, no, a Lib-Lab coalition was never going to happen.”
The very first line of what you quoted.
Mathew Huntbach
That’s a bit like saying “I so hate the way Labour has become right-wing under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown that I’m going to vote Conservative even though the Conservatives are even more right wing”.
I think your taking Anne’s position and placing your own interpretation on it .
The fact the a coalition with the conservatives was the only option is an arguable position but being in such a coalition does not equate to giving a green light to right wing ideology. That is called ‘selling out’
People like Anne et al, are not angry and determined to vote against us because we entered a coalition. It is because of the way we have conducted ourselves in the coalition.
The attacks on the welfare state, The unemployed , The post office privatization…. You don’t need me to spell it out.
Many People held back judgment on our party when we entered the coalition. Clearly now that we have had a few months to show how we are keeping the conservatives in check, many are not impressed.
Please accept that it is not the fact that we are in a coalition with the Tories that angers most people. It is simply how we are behaving (or more accurately not behaving) that will make them vote against all we do.
Many, Many people have lost trust in the party and rightly or wrongly, they feel they have been misled by Clegg.
The fact the a coalition
Should read ” The fact that a coalition”
Matthew Huntbach
Actually YOU let the Tories in by persuading wavering labour voters that you were a viable alternative so do not blame me as AV is not even in place yet, you have not even got the referendum properly approved so how was that my fault? Oh yes I voted Lib Dem!!!!! Do not try to put the blame on others, that is what makes me so sick, blame me , blame Labour, anyone but yourself. I remember the Tories leaving a right mess for labour 13 years ago as well. Too many short memories. The electorate does not react well to the blame game. I thought in a democracy you voted for who you wanted so why should I place any candidate whose policies I despise that would enable them to be in power? Do I put BNP as my last preference? I will not vote for AV because the Lib Dems have shown their true colour, blue and I do not want any more Lib Dem MP’s with forked tongues. Only way I have to show my disgust, unfortunate but true. this is precisely why you should not hold it in May by the way as there will be a massive protest vote against you, Cameron knows it, he has been making you the ‘front men’. I have also been looking at AV and PR again and am concerned that these can allow a minority extreme party in. This happened in 1930’s Germany with PR. and the ensuing weak governments. Add the similar climate of mass unemployment and economic recession and there is the possibility of a powder keg exploding. How would you prevent this?
Adam Bell
“I remain astonished at the way many commenters appear to believe that they’ll wake up on Oct 21st in a hellish wasteland populated by wicked Thatcherite demons purposely torturing the most vulnerable in our society. This is perhaps best examplified by Anne’s insistence that we’re on course for a second holocaust because disability benefits are being cut”.
“The persons being impacted by the changes to disability assessment will include people who do require more provision than they are awarded – but this is the inverse of what we had previously, when some people received more provision than they required. The parties at fault here are those who received more than they needed – and those who failed to report them when they found this out.
I am not insisting there will be a holocaust but I am warning that the signs are there, the blaming of other groups for all the ills. When many more start losing their jobs and standard of living they may well turn against those they have been convinced are to blame. The Labour government began this blame game and the coalition have continued it. The media climate was created by government, do not be naive.
It is very hard to get DLA and there already is a system of medicals and recall medicals in place. At least you agree that disability benefits are being CUT!!!!! the most vulnerable, well done Lib Dems!!!!!! You are making the climate that CAN lead to groups being held to blame and being attacked yet you blame the ‘scroungers’ for this? There is only 1% fraud in DLA!!!!!!! Your post shows that you do not give a damn that vulnerable people are going to suffer, better under provision than over?? These are PEOPLE you are talking about, collateral damage are they? You wonder why I am scared? Are you really a Lib Dem? Please will other Lib Dems tell me if you agree with this? God help us all.
Matthew Huntbach
You blame the voting system. Why not other things? Why not consider a minority government so that the Conservatives would only get things through with broad approval?
It almost seems like there was a hunger for power and AV that overrided the consideration of other options.
What about the voting system that elected Nick Clegg?
What about the decision to paint the Lib Dem as the miracle people with respect to the economy? It is hard to win the argument when all you are interested in is Damascus politics which hopes for the people to suddenly have a vision and decide to vote Lib Dem.
It seems like people are eager to point fingers at things outside their control.
@Anne
Believe it or not there are LibDems that think the current policy on welfare reform is wrong, unfortunately those LibDems are not walking the corridors of power, many deep down feel just as helpless as you and are at the moment, in an exercise of self delusion, busy justifying each individual detail of coalition policy (which lets face it is an easy thing to do) whilst desperately trying not to look at the big picture and what the OVERALL of effect benefit changes on the weakest and most vulnerable in society will be, but for many disabled I’m sure, it will seem like they are living ‘hellish wasteland populated by wicked Thatcherite demons’ out to persecute them, and in my opinion they wouldn’t be wrong.
but for many disabled I’m sure, it will seem like they are living ‘hellish wasteland populated by wicked Thatcherite demons’ out to persecute them, and in my opinion they wouldn’t be wrong.
I concur….
Anne you’re not alone. It is sickening that people will have to suffer. Protest is all we can do because the people running the coalition are not going to protect those most in need.
Barry George
The fact the a coalition with the conservatives was the only option is an arguable position but being in such a coalition does not equate to giving a green light to right wing ideology. That is called ‘selling out’
People like Anne et al, are not angry and determined to vote against us because we entered a coalition. It is because of the way we have conducted ourselves in the coalition.
The attacks on the welfare state, The unemployed , The post office privatization…. You don’t need me to spell it out.
The most eloquent description of why Lib Dem support is haemorrhaging I’ve yet seen on any blog. That an element of the LD party refuses to even countenance it shames it.
@Mike,
When you provide a reference, you should really try to make sure it says what you say it says. That report points out that 0.5% of DLA paid out is fraud – but that 8% of DLA paid out is due to claimants not informing the DWP when their circumstances change, with only 1% being due to administrative error. Given that the claimed cost reduction is 20%, which is intended to come from a combination of reduced payouts and reduced administrative costs, it’s clear that there is scope to reduce overpayments, in line with cuts to back-office staff – perhaps not 20%, but certainly some scope.
What is clear is that the new assessment process may not be working correctly, and requires change. This is a genuine issue, and I sympathise with those people who have had their benefits removed inappropriately. This is a clear target for reform.
We need to distinguish between welfare cuts (driven by Osborne and the deficit) and welfare reform (driven by IDS).
Nick Clegg has mentioned his support of welfare reform, aimed at making is easier for the unemployed to get out of the poverty trap. If this involves the sort of measures IDS’s thinktank was proposing before the election, I think any of us on the centre-left, whether Labour or Lib Dem, should welcome it.
The details of welfare reform haven’t been announced yet, but to get an idea of what is likely to be proposed, have a read of the executive summary of the following:
http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/client/downloads/CSJ%20Dynamic%20Benefits%20exec%20WEB%20NEW.pdf
IDS wants to simplify the benefits system, he believes this will bring a number of benefits, including making it easier for the jobless to take up work. And he wants to slow down the withdrawal of benefits for those on low pay. I’ve read speculation that most of this reform will only take place towards the end of this parliament, and that seems likely, because of the complexity of the changes, and because slowing down the withdrawal of benefits could only be afforded once the deficit is dealt with.
Osborne is demanding further cuts in welfare, which IDS has been trying to resist. Attack these, by all means, but let’s not get them confused with welfare reform.
George
We are talking about the very real welfare cuts that have already been announced in the budget. They will drastically affect the lives of many, many people for the worse.
We are not talking about the hypothetical ideas of IDS because they currently hold no place in reality.
The up coming spending review will no doubt bring yet more savage attacks on the sick, the disabled and the unemployed.
You seem fixated on IDS’s ideas which I agree could make some sense if they were ever to make it past the Chancellor. But the poor and vulnerable are being victimized now, so this is no time to be holding our breath in waiting for IDS to save the day. There is no evidence that he is likely to achieve that.
Now is the time to step in and help those less fortunate, before it is too late.
Let us not be distracted by hypothetical futures because that will blind us from the reality that his being imposed on those who need help most.
Support IDS by all means, but wouldn’t time be better spent trying to reverse the current policies such as taking away 10 percent of a persons housing benefit if they fail to find a job in 12 months, for example.
These policies are real and whilst everyone is looking at the chess board, 15 moves ahead, the pawns are being quietly taken off the table, right in front of our smiling faces.
Think ahead but don’t be fooled into dismissing ‘now’, because it is now that people need your help.
@Barry George
Absolutely agree. The financial cuts and unreasonable tightening of assessment procedures are having an effect now.
We have to be extremely sceptical that IDS’s proposals, even if considered desirable, will ever make it past the sadistic class-warrior currently running the Treasury.
Reduced financial assistance is bad enough in itself. But we also have to recognise that the thrust of policy, which seeks to suggest that a key part of current fiscal problem is over-generous benefits and fraudulent claiming, has a negative impact upon people’s quality of life through its stigmatizing effect. The British welfare system is not particularly financially generous to the individual to start with, when considered cross-nationally. Further cuts and restrictions will only worsen the plight of many vulnerable households. Certainly focusing on the reform of welfare is more desirable if it allows more people to become self-supporting.
Really good article – and remember some of us are going to be facing those doorsteps next May, nevermind 5 years time!
For me the LibDems’ single biggest achievement in the coalition is the taking of 900,000 poor out of tax (to rise to much more by 2015). We should just hammer that one again and again and again. I’ll certainly be saying that on the doorsteps in Labour areas here – and I’ll be asking them, “if you could do just one thing in politics, wouldnt it be something like that? Well we’ve done it. And Labour had 13 years in which they coiuld have done the same thing anytime they liked, without even having to convince anyone else. And they didnt. They invaded Iraq instead.”
“So you’d prefer to spend money on the bureaucrats in PCTs than on doctors and nurses? How very progressive of you.”
And you would rather have GPs making sure they are in line with EU procurement law and negotiating service specifications, rather then treating people. I saw that Clegg the other day said they are making the NHS accountable to local government. How? Dies he thiunk this is true? Is he lying? what? It certainly is the opposite of the truth
@Barry George
“You seem fixated on IDS’s ideas which I agree could make some sense if they were ever to make it past the Chancellor. But the poor and vulnerable are being victimized now, so this is no time to be holding our breath in waiting for IDS to save the day.”
Barry,
I made my comment because a couple of people seemed to be confusing welfare cuts with welfare reform. If they hadn’t, I wouldn’t have said anything.
As a strong supporter of measures to reduce the poverty trap, I’m going to carry on arguing for it on this site. While comments and articles on LibDemVoice may not make welfare reform more likely, while there’s the smallest chance they might, I’m going to take it. I don’t cut and paste old posts, I try to refine and improve my arguments, but I will sometimes be repeating arguments, because, while you will have read them before, many won’t.
“Let us not be distracted by hypothetical futures”
I disagree. I think it’s easier to influence the debate before the government has invested credibility in a policy. It’s worthwhile trying to work out what may be proposed, so you can lobby for or against it, before the government publicly commits itself.
“Now is the time to step in and help those less fortunate, before it is too late”
As you know, I have posted my opposition to the 10% reduction in housing benefit for the long-term unemployed. When John Hemming write an article on the site, I challenged him on the subject, and he acknowledged there might be a problem. As he is a coalition loyalist, I have hopes that his public doubts may mean voicing private concerns about the issue to Nick Clegg. I’ve also commented on ConservativeHome on the issue. I like to think that, because I put the concern in a constructive way, there’s a chance some of them might have listened. Others have adopted a different approach to lobbying for change, by vehemently attacking the coalition. In my opinion, my arguments are more likely to be heard if I put my concerns more gently.
George,
I made my comment because a couple of people seemed to be confusing welfare cuts with welfare reform. If they hadn’t, I wouldn’t have said anything.
I did not see any such confusion, but we are all free to perceive and see what we believe is there. If you perceived such misconceptions then of course you have every right to address them.
I don’t cut and paste old posts, I try to refine and improve my arguments, but I will sometimes be repeating arguments, because, while you will have read them before, many won’t.
Same here, and if it is good enough for the goose….
I totally accept your reasoning, but I would of course expect the same courtesy in return. Those of us that feel that a more aggressive response to some of the coalition policies are required might also repeat their arguments. If you are happy to rinse and repeat your position then it goes without saying that those who take a harder line than you are equally justified in doing so.
I did read your comment the other day with regard to not calling people ‘trolls’ and I commend your stance on that issue. In my view, almost everyone posting here is an adult and that in most cases makes them a ‘voter.’ So your request that people do not make ad hominem attacks is valid and respected.
However, it is important in my view not to simply ignore posts we don’t like (as you suggest) but to go out of our way to address them.
I disagree. I think it’s easier to influence the debate before the government has invested credibility in a policy. It’s worthwhile trying to work out what may be proposed, so you can lobby for or against it, before the government publicly commits itself.
And of course you have every right to disagree. Your point is not without merit. It is possible (though not likely) that the dreams of IDS may one day come true. If it does and becomes so because people like yourself have lobbied hard for it then all your hard work would have been worthwhile.
Alas, it does not make it any less hypothetical at the moment, where as the ridiculous ‘medicals’ that are forcing 90 percent of disabled people back in to the work market when only 1 percent of them are being dishonest about their ability to work and 1/3 of these cases are overturned on appeal is not hypothetical. They are real.
It is important that you continue to do what you do George. And I respect your belief that a more gentle approach is more appropriate but please respect my right to disagree.
I want something done ‘now’ to help those who are being victimized ‘now’. Such a position can not be taken from a gentile perspective because urgency is required to meet the needs of a current catastrophe.
When the Titanic sank there were of course people like you that wanted to make sure that in the future, ships were safer and future lives weren’t lost. Such a position, though commendable and necessary, is of no use to the people on the sinking ship. They need life boats or they drown.
As you know, I have posted my opposition to the 10% reduction in housing benefit for the long-term unemployed.
I wasn’t aware but I am pleased you voiced your concern. I am not an enemy to your stance, merely a critic of its suitability in this (for some) very frightening time.
I have hopes that…..
Yes I understand that your position is based on the ‘hope’ that gentle influence will resonate in the corridors of power. I don’t share that hope, but I respect it and ‘hope’ that I am wrong and that you are right.
Others have adopted a different approach to lobbying for change, by vehemently attacking the coalition. In my opinion, my arguments are more likely to be heard if I put my concerns more gently.
That’s your prerogative George. But if we all keep fighting for what we believe in the way we believe is right then maybe, between us, we will have a better future.
@Adam Bell: You’ve made the mistake there- read the “Changes in Customer Circumstances” bit on page 10-onwards that explains what this percentage actually records. There are three subgroups of this- the first two are recoverable anyway and the third is an estimate of all of those that cant be accurately recorded or recovered, resulting from a gradual change over time etc.
The first two are ones that can be targeted and are recovered anyway, and so can’t figure into the 20% cuts in “caseload and expenditure”, and the third can’t be targeted or recovered because they’re based on subjective estimates and so on. So the cuts can’t come from there.
@Adam Bell: “which is intended to come from a combination of reduced payouts and reduced administrative costs,”
It specifically says “caseloads and expenditure” in the Budget. That 8% is 8% that is either already recovered as a matter of course or unable to be recovered.
George,
I have replied to you but my comment is is awaiting moderation.
There is nothing out of line with the comments policy in it’s content and Mike’s comments are appearing fine. So I guess I am being moderated or that I have gone over a certain word count that requires moderation ??
Hopefully you will be able to read my response once it is accepted…
@Barry George
Thanks for your reply, I wish everyone on this forum were able to write such generous-natured comments.
“I would of course expect the same courtesy in return”
When I’ve implied criticism of other people’s comments, I’ve not been referring to you. You’re one of those people who is an asset to this site, because, while you can be savage in your criticisms of the coalition, you respond to what people have written, rather than guessing at their motivations, you don’t attack the person, and I sense that you’ve an open mind.
“However, it is important in my view not to simply ignore posts we don’t like (as you suggest) but to go out of our way to address them”
I should elaborate. I don’t stop answering comments if I disagree with them, quite the opposite. But I do avoid answering people if I feel they aren’t willing to engage in meaningful debate.
If I make a comment about posting style, I think it’s best to make general comments, without directing them at individuals. Indeed, some of this comment is an example. But criticising people by name is usually counter-productive. An exception is when you’re making a suggestion to an ally – as was the case when I suggested not calling people trolls. Another exception is when they are decent people, who I think I get on with, such as David Allen.
I think the reason why so many threads turn into a flame war, is because when people read a post that angers them, they reply in kind, and rational debate goes out of the window. Much better, instead, to reply to someone you can engage with.
“It is possible (though not likely) that the dreams of IDS may one day come true”
That day may be closer than we previously thought 🙂
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11459055
One of my comments once tripped the spam filter, because it contained lots of links. Presumably, the filter was triggered by some phrasing in your comment, and the comment had to wait for manual moderation. Annoying, but that’s the price we pay for not being flooded by adverts for viagra.
If you want to criticise me by name, feel free to go ahead. To do otherwise is just snide, a way of getting a dig in and then throwing your hands up when the person it’s directed at wants to answer.
If you have a problem with any of my posts, I would hope you’d say what and quote them so I can answer.
Sorry if it came over that way, Mike. It wasn’t aimed at you.
From what I remember of your posts, you are like Barry George. You attack the coalition in robust terms and criticise what defenders of the coalition are saying, but I don’t remember you attacking people personally.
And I was impressed by your lack of tribalism, when you voiced your opposition to Phil Woolas. But thanks for the invitation, I’ll let you know if I feel differently in future 😉
Clearly, the problem with making a general comment on posting style, is some will think it was aimed at them, when it wasn’t. But I’m wary of direct criticism. I’ve had some unpleasant experiences when I’ve tried to do it.
Maybe I shouldnt have said the above, but I do get frustrated when serious debate closes down because we get into a vicious cycle of accusations, that the other people are trolling, or accusing another person of insincerity or deceit. And my main point is a positive suggestion, that we’ll get more civilised debate, if folk focus on responding to those who they disagree with, but get on with, rather than those they are outraged by.
That said, there have been some pretty good debates recently, where there has been some politeness. Maybe things are getting better.
Fair enough, it’s a fair point. I’ll admit to being completely paranoid on this site- some will attack me without even reading what I’ve written because of the Labour in my name, like in this thread. Getting taken to task for supporting FPTP over several posts of a discussion in which I mentioned right from the start that I didn’t! And it’s hard to keep track of who’s who.
I’d like to see a thread about Labour, since there are so many one more won’t hurt, about how we’re going to work together over AV- get our arguments straight and so on. Plenty of people here seem to want Labour to oppose AV so they can blame us for when it doesn’t pass, which is a shame and that needs to change. I’ll be saying the same to Labour people as well who think that it’s worth the gamble to vote no and hope for a split.
Mike “I’ll admit to being completely paranoid on this site”
I can sympathise. In the past, I posted on a site where I was the only person putting a particular viewpoint. I tried to stay calm, not let the hostility get to me, but the stress built up, and eventually I had to stop posting on that site. I hope the same doesn’t happen to you.
I’m sure you realise it, but Lib Dem tribalists aren’t typical of Lib Dem members, just as Labour tribalists aren’t of Labour. I think confrontational people are more likely to post than conciliatory people, and the internet can bring out the worst in even the least confrontational. As a Lib Dem coalition supporter, I’ve occasionally felt the red mists rising when I’ve felt we were being attacked unfairly.
A Cooperation-with-Labour-over-AV thread sounds a really good idea. Not sure I’d be the best person to write it, and I’ve already got two posts mulling around in my mind. Would you consider writing a guest post on the subject? LDV had Will Straw write on cooperation with Labour recently, so they do accept posts from Labour members. If you’re interested, it might be worth emailing LDV, just to sound them out, first.
Mike(The Labour one): Don’t worry, attacking people without first properly reading what they’ve read isn’t restricted to Labour people sometimes in the comments on this site; Lib Dems do it to Lib Dems too 🙂
George
Thanks for your kind and candid reply.
Mike
Yeah , I understand your paranoia… Somepeople here don’t actually appear to read the comments before they reply to them.
Hmmm, I wonder how many would assume the above comment was aimed at them if this thread was still active 🙂
@Barry George “Hmmm, I wonder how many would assume the above comment was aimed at them if this thread was still active”
Interesting to speculate. Sadly, it’d probably only be those it wasn’t aimed at.
George
Interesting to speculate. Sadly, it’d probably only be those it wasn’t aimed at.
🙂 so very true….