ConservativeHome’s Tim Montgomerie has today published a run-down of what he sees as the key compromises and trade-offs on new policies that have been made within government by David Cameron and Nick Clegg since the Coalition Agreement was signed.
The graphic below sums up Tim’s view of the overall effect — that the Tories are being dragged to the liberal-centre as a result of pressure from the Liberal Democrats:
Tim lists 10 separate post-Agreement compromises settled, in his view, in the Lib Dems’ favour and which few Tories will like, including:
- A reformed House of Lords elected by PR. Although this was also a Tory manifesto promise it was not a first term priority. Use of proportional representation is also a LibDem win.
- No British Bill of Rights of the kind that might have stopped votes for prisoners.
- No repatriation of powers from the EU.
- Suspension of all major family policy initiatives including long-grassing of the introduction of a tax allowance for marriage.
- A delay to Trident renewal until after the next General Election.
- Greater use of community sentences, less use of prison.
- Higher rates of Capital Gains Tax.
- Yesterday’s referral of NewsCorp’s takeover of BSkyB to OfCom
And a further 5 compromises that, though they are wins for the Lib Dems, are also appealing to Tories, such as lifting low-paid workers out of the income tax system, the pupil premium for disadvantaged children, reform of the welfare system to ‘make work pay’, and Steve Webb’s draft idea for a universal pension of £140.
Of course, there have been sizeable concessions made by the Lib Dems to the Conservatives, too — chiefly from the Lib Dem side the acceptance that the structural deficit should be eliminated entirely during the lifetime of this parliament (which is forcing many painful spending cuts, especially in welfare, that the Lib Dems would have preferred not to make), and the acceptance by Nick Clegg and Vince Cable of the broad thrust of the Browne Report’s recommendation for higher university tuition fees in England (albeit with a cap still in place, and a more progressive repayment structure than the Tories wanted).
To those two major concessions are also added Chris Huhne’s green lighting of nuclear power (a U-turn supported by most Lib Dem members), the introduction of a cap on economic immigration (though this is being watered-down in the face of economic reality), and the abandonment of key Lib Dem policies such as our amnesty for illegal immigrants, and Vince Cable’s mansion tax.
Such are the realities of coalition politics — everyone has to compromise, recognising that no one party won the election. If the public really wanted undiluted Conservative or Lib Dem policies we needed to vote for them in sufficient numbers: we, the public, didn’t give either party that mandate, so now the politicians are making the best of the situation. Policies from all parties are being diluted: no wonder purists hate it.
As I commented in May, immediately after the Coalition Agreement was signed:
Many of the hobby horses of political parties which are not mainstream, and do not command majority public support, are jettisoned. Instead politicians learn to focus on those policy areas which they know the public will like, and on which there’s widespread agreement. Parties hate it – they like to be in control – but the public is the winner.
* With thanks to Tim Montgomerie for permission to reproduce the graphics used in this post.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
"The old savage England": D.H. Lawrence visits the Stiperstones
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Nonconformistradical
Henry
Daniel Walker
David Raw
38 Comments
Yes. it’s funny how can you read the list of good things that we are responsible for and get a gentle warm glow, and then watch Question Time and feel like puttting your foot through the TV every time our bloke opens his mouth and starts defending the indefensible.
How has the leadership made us all feel quite so bad? It’s a rare talent
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/thetorydiary/2010/07/cameron-tells-daily-mail-that-tory-voters-are-getting-80-of-the-conservative-manifesto.html
“Cameron tells Daily Mail that Tory voters are getting 80% of the Conservative manifesto”
“We wouldn’t be able to do a tenth of this with a minority government. We’d be permanently looking over our shoulders to see if we could get any proposals through.”
So does the fact that Liberal Democrats only have 1/5 of the mps they should only be allowed to get through 2/10
of their Policies?
If that’s how low Liberal Democrats view their worth in Government? if it is, then they don’t deserve to be in power anyway.
Why would any party agree to abandon over 3/4 of their manifesto?
Especially when the Dismal 2/10th that they are getting, are not the policies that mean the most, to the core of the party.
I just happened to be doing some stats on this exact thing yesterday. Based on the guardian promise tracer:
The government have so far kept 14.7% of the promises in the coalition agreement which came from the Lib Dem manifesto
The government have so far kept 9.8% of the promises in the coalition agreement which came from the Conservative manifesto
The government have so far kept 11.9% of the promises in the coalition agreement which came from both manifestos
The government have so far kept 8.9% of the promises in the coalition agreement which came from neither manifesto
The problem therefore isn’t one of quantity but of quality.
Moreover it may be indicative of a problem with the coalition document itself. The document contains:
16.2% Lib Dem promises
43.7% Conservative promises
16.0% promises common to both parties and
24.1% promises which came from absolutely nowhere.
In other words almost half of the coalition document is Tory (and only Tory) and almost a quarter is stuff which nobody asked for at all.
The making up, from nothing, of nearly a quarter of the government’s policies, in a matter of a couple of hours, by just a handful of men, without consulting anyone, should be of concern to people of all parties.
“Especially when the Dismal 2/10th that they are getting, are not the policies that mean the most, to the core of the party.”
Yes, I don’t think many people in the party care at all about raising the threshold for paying income tax, the pupil premium, a new Green Investment Bank, or a referendum on AV. I mean, it wasn’t as if those were four of the main policies we fought the election on.
Say what you like about the Coalition, rewriting history so that the things we did achieve in the agreement are simply thrown aside as unimportant is completely silly.
“A reformed House of Lords elected by PR. Although this was also a Tory manifesto promise it was not a first term priority. Use of proportional representation is also a LibDem win.”
All political parties want to reform the Lords. The problem is building a sufficient consensus in parliament as to the direction reform should now take. I won’t be holding my breathe on this one.
“No British Bill of Rights of the kind that might have stopped votes for prisoners.”
Even if the Human Rights Act had been repealed we would still be bound by the Convention. All we have done is provide cover for Cameron to ditch a daft policy.
“No repatriation of powers from the EU.”
Wouldn’t have happened anyway. This is a promise Cameron knew he couldn’t keep. We’ve merely let him of the hook.
“Suspension of all major family policy initiatives including long-grassing of the introduction of a tax allowance for marriage.”
A good but relatively minor win.
“A delay to Trident renewal until after the next General Election.”
What difference does it make? Trident will still be renewed.
“Greater use of community sentences, less use of prison.”
Isn’t this more to do with Ken Clarke and the fiscal position?
“Higher rates of Capital Gains Tax.”
A good win but worth noting that CGT is still less than when the Tories were last in power.
“Yesterday’s referral of NewsCorp’s takeover of BSkyB to OfCom”
According to Tim Montgomerie would probably have happened anyway.
All in all I’m afraid I don’t think it adds up to much and the losses outweigth the gains tenfold. The most notable feature of coalition govt so far is how power has drained from the parties into the hands of the leadership. It is clear both Cameron and Clegg are using the coalition as cover to ditch policies that they personally don’t favour. The last few months have been bad ones for British democracy.
“… the pupil premium …”
I’m really mystified by the fact that people continue to refer to this as a triumph for the Lib Dems.
Surely the essence of the pupil premium was that it was additional money which would be targeted at schools with large numbers of disadvantaged pupils. We were repeated told that this would make large reductions in average class sizes possible (not that those claims were believable even before the election).
What we’ve ended up with is spending on schools that isn’t even keeping pace with pupil numbers – that is, a cut in spending per pupil in real terms.
not sure Matt can do maths. 1/5 MPs, 1/5 policies. Looks about right to me.
Question Time was car-crash TV. It has got to the point where it is the Tories who are more likely to contribute balanced and thoughtful comments, while the Lib Dems adopt a nervous high-volume rapid-fire ranting style which is supposed to cover up the deficiencies in the content. It singularly fails to do so.
Jeremy Browne’s speech on tuition fees was pitiful, but his speech on control orders was even worse. Not because of the content, but because of the style. Browne gave an “on-the-one-hand-on-the-other-hand” speech. David Davis, probably wanting to be kind, pointed out that Browne as a member of government was not allowed to give an opinion about the issue because a decision had not been reached. This stunned viewer’s reaction was “so why on earth did Browne yell out his indecisive speech with such misplaced bombastic pride?”
Our guys have had their confidence shot to pieces, and it shows.
“We wouldn’t be able to do a tenth of this with a minority government. We’d be permanently looking over our shoulders to see if we could get any proposals through.” Cameron
It could also be said then that the LibDems are responsible for the Tories being able to put 90% of the polices currently in the pipeline
So if anyone now tells me that it could of been far worse if the Lib Dems didn’t join the Tories and that the party is a moderating influence I can now say ‘ what a load of bolox’
nige (exLD)
Sorry that should read ‘their polices’ not ‘the polices’
@ nige
if we hadn’t formed a coalition, the tories would have had a minority goverment, then an election probably about now, which would have seen no one vote for us (as they would have wanted a ‘strong’ govermment of one or t’other of the main parties) in a fight we couldn’t afford where the media would have slaughtered us and no doubt where the Tories would have got a decent majority. Then they’d be putting in 100% of their manifesto. is that any better, for us or the country?
@Foregone Conclusion
“Yes, I don’t think many people in the party care at all about raising the threshold for paying income tax, the pupil premium, a new Green Investment Bank, or a referendum on AV. I mean, it wasn’t as if those were four of the main policies we fought the election on.
Say what you like about the Coalition, rewriting history so that the things we did achieve in the agreement are simply thrown aside as unimportant is completely silly.”
Income Tax raised by a £1000, but taken away again in Child Benefit and in raising VAT to 20% (So that policy was useless)
Pupil Premium- Promised £2.5 billion of NEW MONEY, But that is not what we got, Schools Budget was now slashed, and the money saved is now recycled into the Pupil Premium, so the school budget has only raised by 0.1% (another policy useless)
Yes you got a referendum on AV, but the abandoning of “election promises” The way Nick Clegg and Alexander have praised Osborne and these cuts as being “progressive” when they are clearly “regressive” has probably cost your party AV.
It is completely silly to paint a picture by Joe Blogg and try to sell it as Monet
@MrsB
“not sure Matt can do maths. 1/5 MPs, 1/5 policies. Looks about right to me”
The last time i went to school and did fractions. 1/5th was Equal to 2/10th
Nige: Fine, but what would have happened if we forced the Tories to go it alone as a minority government? They would have hobbled along for 6 months before calling another election, at which we would have been derided for blowing the opportunity to get any of our policies enacted and Cameron would probably have won a majority. At which point we would have had absolutely no moderating influence at all. And we would have permanently reinforced the idea that hung parliaments lead to dithering and indecision.
Andrew R: It’s easy to point out why the compromises we have managed to secure are the easier ones to make, but the point remains that they might not have been made at all had we not been there. Providing cover for Cameron to ditch crap policies is a worthy thing to do, if he wouldn’t have been able to ditch them otherwise. Yes, prison policy is as much to do with Ken Clarke as with us, but why is Ken Clarke in charge of prisons? I rather suspect it’s got something to do with us!
Anhony Aloysius St: Isn’t the whole “new money” argument over the pupil premium a bit of a fight about semantics? If the schools budget had been suject to, say, a cash freeze, but then we had secured New Money From Outside The Education Budget for the Pupil Premium, would that have been materially better for schools than what we have now?
Fred Carver: There is something to your point about policies that were not in either manifesto, but remember that they include things like, for example, the AV referendum. That wasn’t in either manifesto, but it is nevertheless possible to see how it is a compromise between the positions of the two manifestos.
@Stephen Tall
A good article. I often wander over to ConservativeHome to remind myself that it’s not just the Lib Dems who are having to make uncomfortable compromises in this coalition.
Andy Hinton
but what would have happened if we forced the Tories to go it alone as a minority government? They would have hobbled along for 6 months before calling another election, at which we would have been derided for blowing the opportunity to get any of our policies enacted and Cameron would probably have won a majority.
I do love a good non-sequitur..
Let me have a go.
The Tories gained 307 seats so they would have been unable to govern for “6 months” without having to turn to another party with a begging bowl. I think “that” party would have been us and that we would have been able to gain considerable concessions from them in return. We would be seeing some of our manifesto being implemented and we would be seen as an honest party that stuck to it’s manifesto commitments despite the lure of pseudo power. Our national poll ratings would have stayed the same (or improved) and not collapsed as they apparently have since the election.
The Tories would not have called an election as there has been no point since the election that they would have “won” a commanding “majority.” Doing so would have made them look weak. Having been out of power for so long and then needing to turn back to the electorate so quickly because even though they had the most MP’s, they couldn’t negotiate a way to make government work, would have made them look incompetent and their support may well have completely collapsed.
Instead our support has collapsed and the Tories have remained steady, but never steady enough to actually win a majority.
Did we make the wrong choice? It seems so…
Of course, my non-sequitur is no more valid than yours. The difference is that your Non-sequitur is repeated by pro-coalition supporters as if it is a “fact” and that it somehow justifies everything this coalition does because (repeat to ad nauseam) ” The Tories would have called an election, and won a majority, and our support would have collapsed”
Only the fact that our support has collapsed is true. And it has collapsed “because” we are in this coalition, not because we stuck to our political compass and let the Tories try and go it alone.
In short, the argument is no better than the “it would have been worse if we weren’t holding them back” type logic. Or my favourite, “The other party would have done bad things too and it’s all their fault anyway” which is used as a constant justification for the breaking of our manifesto commitments to the electorate (which can be simply translated as lying )
The electorate are not stupid. Our support was reported at 9% this week. Oh , I forget , cue auto reply about amazing council elections results which apparently shows why the consistent polling levels seen on a national level is wrong….
All is well…
I had given up posting on here as the tone was so defensively shrill hat it was like debating with paranoid hysterics. Now that the balance of lib and con in the coalition is being fully revealed do you still stand by all that triumphalist guff about what a wonderful job your negotiating team did? Surely some of you will have the spine to start saying what you must be thinking, ie that you have been royally shafted. I don’t just want to score points but to ask whether any of your big guns will have the gumption to say enough is enough before the country drowns under the tsunami of neo-Thatcherism which many of us predicted.
@Dominic and Andy
A full blown coalition as it is now just means that the Lib Dems are allowing the Tories to act as if they have a majority when they do not, I personally would of preferred a loose ‘per policy’ agreement, that way in my opinion the party could of held the Tories in check, wielded more influence AND with the added bonus that the party would not now be seen as Tory lap dogs with a (reported) 9% support.
Very amusing piece of satire.
Tim Montgomerie doesn’t get enough credit for these joke postings on Conservative home.
I particularly like the fact that almost all the points are things Cameron was going to do, in the manifesto or had nothing at all to do with the Lib Dems. Keep the comedy coming please.
I’m not convinced Cameron would ever have won a majority on his own. Many in his party were very unhappy with the campaign and the failure to secure a majority. There would have been huge pressure on him to tack to the right and occupy the position from which the Tories had lost the last 3 elections. I suspect he would have had a turbulent few months trying to manage his party and run a minority government. He would have ended up looking weak and ineffectual. Labour on the other hand would have the boost of still being in a fight that they expected to lose. They could have ditched Brown and united behind D. Miliband and have had at least some political momentum behind them. I think the Lib Dem vote would have held up or even increased. The period between Nick registering with the voters and the GE was too short to build solid support. Lib Dems might well have done better in a second GE. All speculation of course but I think a Lib/Lab coalition at a second GE is at least as plausible as a conservative majority. I think it’s pretty obvious though that Nick is far happier doing a deal with the Tories than he would have been with Labour.
Dominic Curran,
“if we hadn’t formed a coalition, the tories would have had a minority goverment, then an election probably about now, which would have seen no one vote for us (as they would have wanted a ‘strong’ govermment of one or t’other of the main parties) in a fight we couldn’t afford where the media would have slaughtered us and no doubt where the Tories would have got a decent majority. Then they’d be putting in 100% of their manifesto. is that any better, for us or the country?”
It’s dangerous repeating these things over and over again, because you might end up believing it yourself.
In October 1974, Harold Wilson called a second general election in the hope of getting an overall majortiy. He only just succeeded, and lost if again two years later. Did “no-one” vote for the Liberals in October 1974? Actually, 18% did, which was barely 2% less than in February of that year.
When Labour lost its majority in 1977, did Jim Callaghan call another general election? No, he didn’t. And that’s because the cuts that the IMF had forced his government to implement had made Labour very unpopular.
Are you seriously suggesting that Cameron, having just made savege cuts that are intended to hammer the poor and degrade public services, would have gone to the country a second time? Well yes, you are. Because you know this is the only gambit you have left.
Cleggmaniacs are aghast at the thought that Clegg became leader of the Liberal Democrats because he was hyped by the media, but they are vehement in their insistence that the media would have succeeded in reducing our support to nil if we had refused to prop up Cameron’s Tory government. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
“but they are vehement in their insistence that the media would have succeeded in reducing our support to nil if we had refused to prop up Cameron’s Tory government.”
How would this have manifested itself ? Calling Clegg a Nazi perhaps ?
Been there, done that. And thank goodness our polling and support hasn’t crashed to disasterous levels like in that ‘nightmare scenario’.
And no, Cameron wouldn’t have won a snap election.
Brown was rightly blamed by the voters for his incompetence while a new Labour leader would have had a fairer wind. Liberal Democrats could also hardly be blamed for Cameron’s own decision to cut and run no matter how hysterical the right wing press got. Because there would be nothing remotely incongruous about Nick stating that he couldn’t support a coalition which rejected too much of what we stood for and campaigned on. (always remember the coalition was not inevitable, it was a negotiation only made possibe by the threat to walk away if unhappy and a CHOICE) Combine all that with a public who would unquestionably have been unhappy to go to the polls so quickly after months of campaigning and all this rhubarb about Cameron winning a second snap election after failing to convince the public the first time looks as spurious and full of wishful thinking as it always was.
Well this is becoming predictable…
The sudden death of any thread in which the pseudo logic that is the foundation of pro coalition posters is brought into question.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2301/1806664188_6c12600a3e.jpg
@Barry George “http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2301/1806664188_6c12600a3e.jpg”
😆 Very appropriate. When I read those who argue that a Tory minority government would have been good for the Lib Dems, I too am astonished at their blindness to rational argument. Except … maybe that wasn’t your point. 😉
@Sesenco
I’m sure we’re not going to agree, but…
“Are you seriously suggesting that Cameron, having just made savege cuts that are intended to hammer the poor and degrade public services, would have gone to the country a second time?”
No. I’m not. He’d have held off on the savage cuts, arguing that Lib Dem intransigence was making serious measures to deal with the deficit impossible. He’d have put forward bills highlighting all the most populist parts of his manifesto and the least populist parts of the Lib Dem manifesto, such as on immigration caps. Ashcroft would have pumped huge sums into our marginals. And he’d have gone for a second election.
Would he have won it? I think so, but it’s by no means certain. This is why he agreed to a coalition.
You paint an alluring scenario. The Tories in government, but only able to do what we let them. A Tory government effectively implementing a Lib Dem manifesto.
But the Tories would rather hang themselves than allow that.
So they’d use the discretionary powers of ministers to do things which wouldn’t require legislation. They’d have used their power to put bills before parliament to shift the agenda onto anything that helps them, and hurts us. Then they’d have tried to destroy us.
And, as Menzies Campbell said in, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/05/sir-menzies-campbell-interview-lib-dems-disagree , the country “could have been reduced to a very, very low economic position.”
George Kendall,
” Ashcroft would have pumped huge sums into our marginals”
I though he had already done that.
“And he’d have gone for a second election.”
Who? Ashcroft? Is that a Freudian slip?
“Would he have won it? I think so, but it’s by no means certain.”
You have fallen into the same trap here as a number of the Labour trolls – you have set yourself up as an Oracle of Delphi. All you are doing is offering a motivated opinion. Why should I heed it? What special knowledge do you possess that the rest of us lack? I may be wrong, but I doubt if your political experience extends back into the 1970s, as mine does. In fact, I don’t recall seeing your name until May of this year.
“He’d have held off on the savage cuts, arguing that Lib Dem intransigence was making serious measures to deal with the deficit impossible.”
Ah, I get you. The reason why the Tories only got 36% is not because people were (rightly) terrified of the cuts they were proposing to implement, but because they weren’t promising to cut enough!
“But the Tories would rather hang themselves than allow that.”
Funnily enough, Jim Callaghan allowed it in 1977/78, and he didn’t hang himself. So this business about Tories rather hanging themselves than forming a minority government obviously doesn’t apply to Labour.
“Then they’d have tried to destroy us.”
But that is exactly what they are doing now!
There would appear to be no limit to the mental contortions that Cleggmaniacs and Clegg apologists are willing to perform in order to justify Clegg’s propping up of a right-wing Tory government, that is in the process of dismantling public services and hammering the poor at the behest of the mega-rich here and over the Atlantic.
Oh, by the way, George. I have asked you on at least two occasions if you will volunteer to be one of the million extra people who will lose their jobs as a result of the Tory government’s cuts according to Price Waterhouse Coopers – and you have sedulously avoided giving me an answer.
Personally, I’m quite comfortable with 15% of the work being done in the first 6 months of a 5 year government. This seems like an acceptable rate of progress to me.
@Sesenco
“Oh, by the way, George. I have asked you on at least two occasions if you will volunteer to be one of the million extra people who will lose their jobs as a result of the Tory government’s cuts according to Price Waterhouse Coopers – and you have sedulously avoided giving me an answer.”
Come on, Sesenco, you’re better than that. Imagine I asked you, if the coalition collapses, as you want, and that led to an increase in unemployment, would you volunteer to sacrifice your job? It would be an utterly ridiculous question. You’d be quite right to scorn it. Why should you give up your job for supporting what you believe to be right?
Like Menzies Campbell, I think breaking up the coalition would lead to serious economic problems for the country. And I think it would mean more jobs lost, not less. I know you disagree. You’re free to say why you think as you do. But so am I, and so I’ll expand on the argument I’ve used before…
In my opinion, massive inherited overspending has left the government with no good choices.
– If it uses too many tax rises to sort out the overspending, in my opinion, that’d lead to too much tax pressure on the part of the private sector that pays our way in the world, which would mean greater problems in the long term.
– If it delays the cuts, that’d lead to the same cuts, just later; it would mean a bigger debt and higher interest payments on the bond markets, and that would mean additional cuts. And delaying the cuts might mean we still have substantial structural overspending as we go into the next crisis, which could mean we’d be unable to fund a Keynesian stimulus package in that crisis, so more unemployment.
Personally, I’d prefer a slightly slower cuts programme, and slightly more tax rises. But the difference certainly isn’t a good enough reason to bring the government down. The worst danger for the UK at the last election was a parliament unable for form a stable government at a time of financial crisis. Being prepared to help form that stable government may do short-term electoral damage to the party. I think it’s possible we’ll gain from it, but we may not. I don’t want to see our party loose seats. But I’m more concerned about severe damage to our economy, and hundreds of thousands more people lose their jobs, because there’s no stable government to sort out the cataclysmic overspending Labour left us with. I am hugely proud of the party for taking this risk, not for party advantage, but because I think it’s the right thing to do.
And what of the Price Waterhouse Coopers report you quote? The final paragraph of their executive summary is as follows:
“Although the fiscal squeeze will be painful, it should help to keep interest rates lower for longer than would
otherwise be the case, which may also help to keep the pound at a competitive level and so support exports. A sounder
fiscal position should also reduce the risks of future financial market and currency shocks and avoid crowding out private sector activity later in the recovery process. It will be a difficult journey, but the aim must be to provide a
stronger foundation for growth which is financially, socially and environmentally sustainable in the long run.”
@George
“Personally, I’d prefer a slightly slower cuts programme, and slightly more tax rises. But the difference certainly isn’t a good enough reason to bring the government down”
How about a cuts programme that is directed in a different direction?
As discussed before, there are alternative cuts that won’t
*Remove Mobility Component of DLA to people in Care Homes
*Reduce Job seekers allowance by 10% for anyone on JSA for over 12 months
*Reduce LHA so that only 3 in 10 Houses are affordable with Housing Benefit rather than 5 in 10
*Removing CB where there is 1, 40% tax payer, rather than a combined income of £60k
If a party believes it is morally wrong, to be disproportionately aiming cuts at the poorest in society, Then surly that is a reason to pull out of coalition?
Unless of course Liberal Democrats are comfortable with this situation.
And how about Civil Liberties? Surly a Liberal Party, that is committed to Civil Liberties at it’s core, would not support a government for another “5 years” if it was not going to address this issue.
Granted, the coalition has until
Jan 11 to come to a decision on 28 days detention without charge.
It is being reported that this is likely to change to 14days, but then have strict bail conditions attached or further 14days extensions applied for. (which should not be hailed as a victory)
And then there are the control orders
Government has until March 2011, before these have to be renewed. Again word is, that these are set to stay and the government is letting it go to the wire, before making the announcements as they know the problems it will cause the coalition.
Knowing how this government is aiming cuts at the poor and turning it’s back on civil liberties, I would have thought would have been more than enough reasons not to stay in coalition.
George Kendall,
Let’s knock on the head the hoary old canard that unstabe governments are bad for the economy.
During the 1950s, France had a series of unstable governments, some of them lasting no more than months, yet during that period France experienced unprecedented economic growth and recovered completely from the war in less than a decade.
For much of the post-war period, Italy was governed by a series of fractious coalitions, none of which was particularly stable. Yet during that period Italy underwent unprecedented economic growth, to the extent that in 1986 it recorded a per capita income higher than the United Kingdom (something Thatcher didn’t want to crow about).
Oh, and even the Callaghan government of the late 1970s presided over economic growth that was higher than that achieved by Thatcher.
And before I forget it, Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1, Clinton, Bush 2 and now Obama have all faced Congresses dominated by the opposition party. Did any of these situations cause gilts traders to panic and the US economy to go into freefall?
George Kendall,
“- If it delays the cuts, that’d lead to the same cuts, just later; it would mean a bigger debt and higher interest payments on the bond markets, and that would mean additional cuts.”
“Personally, I’d prefer a slightly slower cuts programme, and slightly more tax rises.”
Are you not having your cake and eating it here?
You remind me of Sue Slipman, when NUS President, claiming to be both a Zionist and supporter of the PLO in the course of a single speech.
@matt
We’ve discussed these issues in great detail in other threads, and you know where I stand on a number of them.
In brief. There are some things the coalition is doing that I dislike, some that I like. Because there are good progressives in the government, fighting behind the scenes, I think there’s a reasonable chance that some of the worst things won’t happen.
Overall, I think the coalition continuing is a far better option for the poor than the coalition collapsing.
And, on the issues you raise, if there were Labour government with Alistair Darling as Chancellor dealing with this deficit, I think their policies would have been broadly similar, except some of the pain would have been deferred a couple of years.
If there were Ed Balls as Chancellor, I fear he’d have done all he could to defer the pain to his successor, and I shudder to think of the long-term consequences.
@Sesenco
If you are arguing that unstable government tends to be good for the long-term economic health of the country, I don’t agree. In the present situation, with unprecedented peacetime overspending, and unbelievably difficult decisions needed to correct that, I think stable government is essential. And I am proud that the long-standing claim of the Lib Dems, that coalitions can provide stable government, is being proved right.
But I fear we’ll have to agree to disagree.
George
I think there’s a reasonable chance that some of the worst things won’t happen.
Well that’s alright then.
The coalition has said that these things will happen.
People are terrified of being made homeless, Being forced to work when they are too ill, Loosing 10 percent of their housing benefit. Being forced to move, cuts in their benefit’s…
But Have no fear… George thinks there’s a reasonable chance they won’t happen.
I wish I had your confidence George but the evidence (from the coalition) is that these things will happen.
I believe those who silently allow these polices to go unchecked are complicit in the suffering of those who will be at the receiving end of such policies.
And I am proud that the long-standing claim of the Lib Dems, that coalitions can provide stable government, is being proved right.
Huh ?
“ PROUD “
Good god, that’s the first time I have heard a real Liberal say that they are “proud” of anything to do with this coalition! (Well apart from the MP’s who are paid to say they are.)
I really thought there was a cure for your blind loyalty to a dead cause George, but it seems that your condition is terminal…
@Barry George
“I think there’s a reasonable chance that some of the worst things won’t happen.
Well that’s alright then.
The coalition has said that these things will happen.
People are terrified of being made homeless, Being forced to work when they are too ill, Loosing 10 percent of their housing benefit. Being forced to move, cuts in their benefit’”
Just to expand on those points.
These policies, especially those that effect the changes to Housing Benefit and the Changing of Local Area Housing Allowances to be calculated using 3 out of 10 properties as being affordable rather than the current 5 out of 10.
The Vote in Parliament is the End of this month.
If Liberal Democrat supporters do not believe in these policies, then they need to be vocal now and make it clear to the MP’s they don’t support.
Being Silent is not going to make this go away, your silence and allowing these policies to slip through, stands to effect 100’000’s of families across the country.
It is not Liberal to put your head down and walk silently by.
As a side note, there is a lot of debate about whether a stable government = stable economy (I agree with Senseco)
But even if you were right, the job of Government is to maintain a stable country.
Putting the poor, the sick and the unemployed through hell will not lead to a stable populous.
Making sweeping cuts in public services does not lead to a stable populous..
In fact, there are already strikes and protests.
The Poll tax was enough to cause people to riot the last time the Conservatives were in power.
I would not be at all surprised to see riots when the full extent of these policies begin to bite.
What price we pay for a speculative belief that these cuts will lead to economic stability and not a deeper recession.
An unstable populous, moved to the new ghetto’s and forced to survive on a below poverty level income.
Anyone got a match ?
@Barry George
“The Poll tax was enough to cause people to riot the last time the Conservatives were in power.
I would not be at all surprised to see riots when the full extent of these policies begin to bite.”
Unfortunately you are right.
National protests have already been organised for March 2011
Although I would never condone rioting, I see this is exactly the way things are heading.
Of course, the vast majority of protesters, will be peaceful demonstrators, But there are going to be a lot of angry demonstrators who have been, Unfairly targeted by the cuts.
The budget is also in March 2011, so there will be many protesters against that, Control Orders are set to be renewed in the same month and many people will join the demonstration over that as well.
On top of all those protesters, you will have many thousands of public sector workers who have lost or are about to lose their jobs .
The recipe is a rather ugly outlook for the coalition, and especially I believe for Liberal Democrats, who will suffer the most in the Scottish, welsh and local elections in May and the AV referendum.
People will probably accuse me of being a Labour Troll and using scare tactics, But these are facts, These Protests have already been arranged. We only need to draw on history to look at what happened on Saturday, 31 March 1990 when 250’000 people descended on London to protest.
It was an Ugly day for Britain, and one that is set to repeat itself.
Thank you Tories, and Thank you Liberals for providing them with the backbone to do it all over again.
“Although I would never condone rioting, I see this is exactly the way things are heading.”
I seem to remember a certain political leader predicting the same thing not too long ago…
Who could that have been ? 😀
I seem to remember a certain political leader predicting the same thing not too long ago…
Oh yeah , I remember. It’s hard to keep up with Clegg and his multiple personality disorder…
Pre- election he said to the Observer
“Imagine the Conservatives go home and get an absolute majority, on 25% of the eligible vote,”
“They then turn around in the next week or two and say we’re going to chuck up VAT to 20%, we’re going to start cutting teachers, cutting police and the wage bill in the public sector.
“I think if you’re not careful in that situation… you’d get Greek style unrest
“And so, my warning to people who think the old politics still works, is be careful what you wish for.”
How ironic.
Worse still the Conservatives didn’t even manage to get 25% of the eligible vote.
They only got 24 %
Yet somehow they have been given the keys to the country…
It’s like following a doomsday cult..
Clegg first predicts a terrible future under a Tory government, then he ensures that the terrible future he predicted comes true by joining with that very same Tory government.
You couldn’t make it up!