Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
according to LORD ADONIS (and the masters of the universe)
wondering what your interest is in shutting down this revelation
Never has a man's name been less apt
Would be to keep Gordon brown and labour in power
that the only way he would consider a Lib/Lab coalition would be without Brown as head of the Labour Party?
But It's probably true. They wouldn't even have had a majority would they?
but depending on policies (especially considering labour's less swinging-cuts-dominated economic policy) may well have become more popular than he his now
and have had to get a bail out from the imf
Probably more key would have been that a Lib Dem/Labour coalition would have struggled to govern against an organised opposition - and it'd have been in the Conservative's interests to turn out strongly in parliament to oppose everything they could in order to force another election (and a strong majority).
A Tory coalition was the only real choice the Lib Dem's had. I'd like to think Nick Clegg thought about the stability of the country before his party's possible gains too.
I know that's not how it technically works but especially after having leaders debates if it had been lib/lab minority government with someone new at the head, I think a lot of people would have lost faith in everything to do with elections and Westminster.
in any case, I seriously doubt a Lib/Lab-led 'rainbow coalition' in hock to the SNP would have played well with too many English voters and I suspect it would have been relatively easy for the Tories to pick off.
AV was as far as the Tories were willing to go and the bottom line is they were probably the Lib Dems' only realistic coalition partner. That doesn't excuse their weakness as the junior party, though.
they could actually (bizarely) have had influence without co-ilitioning.
e.g. let Osbourne have a minority government....then when it came to say 'tuition fees' then the libdems would have been free to vote against it (presuming labour did too) then the fees would probably have been voted against.
As it is they have been offered AV not PR....AV's benefits are not apparent to the majority and therefore I suspect that it will not get voted in, so the libdems might not get anything substantial for their giving the tories majorityu govenment and ensuring the makeweight libdems do not vote roguely against the tories
muddled their way through for six months or so, while blaming the opposition for the state of the economy and not allowing them to get stuck into the job of sorting out "the mess we're in".
Another election would then probabl have been called in September/October that only the Conservatives could afford to campaign in and resulted in a majority government with no Lib Dem influence at all.
But even then, there's no certainty that it would have to come to the point of another GE (so soon), or that the blues would nail it.
That whole scenario is pure conjecture, but unless the Conservatives made big mistakes I can't see it panning out otherwise being particularly likely. I don't doubt that Cameron would have dissolved parliament as soon as he was confident of a majority, and it wouldn't have taken much more movement away from Labour to do it.
Although I don't think people's problem was actually that Brown was 'unelected', rather that Labour had gone stale, a load of long term issues came up at around the same time as he took charge and his public persona was awful. That phrase just happened to be a convenient and easy stick to beat him with, much as Chamberlain will forever be associated with his 'piece of paper'.
Give Labour's unpopularity, another 'unelected' PM would have been a struggle though, for sure.
a PR referendum would have been MASSIVE for the LibDems and for British Politics in general
I think the British public would be WAY more likely to vote yes to PR than to AV
Even if they could get the bill for a referendum through parliament in the first place (which they could probably just about manage), any Labour/Lib Dem coalition would probably have collapsed before they had a chance to enforce the result.
I guess there's a parallel universe in which Britain is about to take a meaningful referendum on electoral reform
People really like the constituency link and the idea they have direct control over who represents them and people hate the idea of a political class that's gets appointed from party ha and that everythings a stitch up no matter who they vote for. And even if they don't I think enough people will be persuaded they do in the build up to a referendum
would ever be fully proportional. We'd probably only ever go as far as having larger constituencies with a top up list for the remainder of seats. It'd need serious work to look at exactly what would work best for this country, particularly taking into account the fact that Scotland/Wales/England/N Ireland all have their own needs.
Part of the problem though, as we've seen with this referendum campaign, is that any sensible debate about political reform just gets obscured by noise and utter nonsense being shouted from the rooftops.
(cos no-one wants the country to be one big constituency) but it could be SO much better.
2010 FPTP UK General election...
Party: Con / Lab / LD
% of votes: 36% / 29% / 23%
% of seats: 47% / 40% / 9%
Votes per seat: 35,000 / 33,400 / 120,000
2007 AMS (i.e. FPTP + top-up list) Scottish Parliament...
Party: SNP / Lab / Con / LD / Grn
% of votes: 34% / 33% / 16% / 15% / 2%
% of MSPs: 36% / 36% / 13% / 12% / 2%
Votes per MSP: 27,600 / 27,000 / 36,400 / 34,800 / 42,800
Not funny. Possibly/probably not even interesting. But factual.
A labour libdem coalition just wasnt a realistic possibility given the resuults of that election
and who had a wtf coffee splurting moment as they read their copy of The Times this morning
They would be well aware that between them and labour they didnt have enough seats for a majority and any coalition would have been unworkable and extremly weak. They made the only real choice they had. Browns offer would have been a good offer had they enough support for it to work but they didnt which makes it completely meaningless
and all his mates down the Liberal Club
I.e wouldnt that have been nice, shame it couldnt happen.
Im sure your uncle could understand the basic maths
he doesn't believe in 'impossible'
he's more a straight up 'right, let's make it happen' kind of guy
As I think this is a pretty similar situation, both other parties didnt have a majority between them, therefore the rules mean they cant be in power. admittedly they could have tried to bring in the other non big 3 seats and scraped a majority but I think most would question its legitimacy, those small players would have the government over a barrel on their regional issues, brown would be hugely unpopular ans would the lib dems for proping him up, theyd struggle to get anything through at a crucial time for the country and ultimately hand a decisive victory to the tories. alternatively they went for a strongr coalition where they had a chance to actually influence things
and unpopular outside it
however, my Uncle's viewpoint is that Clegg, in less than a year, has made his party entirely unelectable for decades and destroyed the party integrity
whereas it MAY have been possible to gamble on the big money - push through with PR and thus make his party eminently electable in perpetuem
an admittedly 1000-1 shot but with a huge payoff so possibly (and with hindsight definitely) worth the risk
But it really was a slim chance, they were in a lose lose sitation. I also think that would be putting their parties interests before the country's as we were really on the brink and a weak government collapsing could have been disasterous
but he sees what happened as Clegg putting his own interests before the Party's
My Uncle is kind of a classic Liberal in the sense that if he had been born into a middle or upper class family he would be a classic Tory but being a self-made fat rich bloke who pulled himself up from a poor working class rural immigrant family he massively distrusts the Old Boy network and thus is already hugely sceptical of The Clegg
I think it's SINCE then that his mistakes have been made (the biggest of which was probably so passionately campaigning for the tuition fee rise and asking his party to vote in favour.) The Lib Dem leadership over the past year have pretty much solely appeared to be the Conservative's lapdog rather than a coalition partner and failed to recognise that they can publicly argue against government policy while still going along with it under the coalition agreement.
Even if he, personally, hadn't campaigned on it "that much" student fees have been a lib dem issue for years. Even if he couldn't get the tories to budge in the coalition agreement he really should've held out for a delay on the decision/announcement until after the referendum.
As it is he might as well have decided to back the tories on bringing back capital punishment, or making Cannabis a class A drug.
They were against fees because it is a barrier for poorer people, but I believe they were always for people who had benefited contributing more through a graduate tax, and I really believe that is what cale came up with. by raising the threshold of earnings but increasing the total amount people pay back, it is basically a tax that only those who have benefited and can therefore afford it pay back. They should have always said up to 9k a year for the top fees places, as a lot of people who go to 9k a year unis will never pay back the full amount. I think the cuts to teaching funding is far more important issue
But a plan where any student can possibly pay more than they do now is the very opposite of Lib Dem policy for years, and it really didn't need to be done when it was.
then they seriously mislead people beforehand - their stance was never communicated as 'a fairer method of funding FE', it was 'no fees', which I'd imagine is the ideological stance of a significant proportion of people for whom it's a key issue (citation needed).
If it was all a calculated decision and just blatant electioneering in recent years as you imply, then quite honestly the Lib Dem leadership deserve everything they get, particularly when Clegg's key message last year was 'no more broken promises'.
They put forward what they would like if they won but they didnt so they trie very hard to make it as fair as possible. It may have gone against their stated policy but I dont believe they betrayed the principles that guided their policy in the first place. If they werent there I imagine the tories would have just upped the fees but not the threshold and students would be even worse off
'fairer funding' if that's what they actually believed in. It's hardly a complex concept.
I also don't believe that the coalition in any way explains why Clegg started beating his chest so passionately in favour of the rise when the agreement allowed him to sit back. It was an utter cock up from him.
Cable at least conducted himself with some level of grace and even though the bill was technically his policy it was still pretty clear he wasn't entirely in favour. Clegg should have steered a similar path.
But circumstances changed and the later was not possible given the coalitions priorities. I guess clegg may have been vocal about it because he was quite proud how they managed to swing it into a quite fair arrangment (that even nus have said is more progressive than currently) and misjudged the public reaction, if they hadnt worked on it and backed it the tories may have tried to push through their own unfairer version, also in the early days it was probably important to present a united front with the media out for them,
they'll realise that they massively misjudged the 'need' for a united front. For all this AV campaigning has turned out to be utter shite from both sides, I suspect the coalition will end up being far healthier for having had some distance driven between the two parties.
100% this about being weak in partnership
but there is a view (increasingly popular in the Liberal Club apparently) that Clegg really began selling out the Party principles almost as soon as he sat down at the negotiating table and thus set the lapdog relationship before the partnership was even sealed
If the gamble he did take paid off he'd have put his party in a much better position for ever, and made future electoral reform towards the PR ideal much more likely than otherwise.
It's also worth noting that the downside of coalition with Labour, if they'd not got or not won a referendum is exactly what you mention above - pretty much destruction of the party. If he felt that was a 99.9% cert with Labour, and the Tory option had maybe nearer 33.3% chance of abject failure then I think he'd have been pretty crazy to take your option.
This boring topic has come up repeatedly since the election. But being the Liberal 'Democrats', they opted for the most (only) democratic option given.
Tories won the most votes, earning the right to govern, but not enough votes to govern on their own.
if they had set up a coalition of losers, as it inevitably would have been called, and basically cheated Tories out of a chance to form a goverment. Clegg would've then campaigned for PR saying it'll bring power to the people, while everyone would be shouting back that he and Labour ignored the will of the people, ie Tories won biggest in the election.
If Nick Clegg had taken this offer then any referendum they managed to put together would've been very likely to return a No vote for much the same reason we're headed for one now - the media would turn it into a referendum on Brown and Clegg, who both lost that election.
The press would have hounded it to pieces and tomorrow we'd probably be having another election whereby Dave was going to storm a massive majority and not even bother with sops like the AV referendum
Makes me shudder imagining it
we had a Euro referendum here
it was most odd indeed
A picture of William the Conquerer, Phillip II, Napoleon, Hitler and Blair stood together with NO written in blood over the top of them
you know what was odd about the Swedish Euro referendum?
The way in which the Swedish Foreign Secretary - the most vocal pro-Euro MP and campaign leader - was viciously stabbed to death in broad daylight in a department store in the centre of Stockholm 3 or 4 days before the vote
Are you trying to imply I'm insensitive because I made a jokey post relating to a bad incident you were alluding to that I had no idea happened?
I find you very difficult to comprehend sometimes
Just a question as sometimes I do find it hard to ascertain the tone you're taking - written word and all that
Just that the situation surrounding the Swedish euro referendum was rather odd
At the end of the day it doesn't matter what Brown offered the Lib Dems, because it wasn't actually possible to put into practice regardless.
But they are wrong.
there could have been a left of centre multiparty coalition but the lib dems didn't want that. they could have accepted that they got 7 million votes on the basis of a manifesto and campaign that was ideologically most similar to labour's. but they didn't want that.
I didn't think it was possible to get over 50% without the Tories OR Labour.
might not quite scrape a majority together (i think the snp have some stupid clause in their constitution or something that means they can't form a coalition with certain parties- maybe wza knows)
1. as pm, gordon brown should have had first attempt to form a government that could command a majority
2. if this failed and the tories attempted by minority for a bit followed by another general election in autumn, that would still be better. there's no reason why the tories would win outright second time round. if nick clegg had favoured labour as coalition partners and been honest about it, i think a second time round could be better for both liberals and labour. labour's popularity would also benefit from having a new leader. but no, nick clegg hates labour.
though from what I recall it's more that Clegg hated Brown rather than labour per se
so i guess he just totally missed the point about most things. for better or for worse, labour at that point was gordon brown (for better imo <3 gordon)
i think people forget about david laws too. he's as much to blame. cunts.
i'm really happy about how much caroline lucas has been working with labour. more green mps please.
Not aware of any constitutional reason for not the snp not entering a rainbow coalition, other than the 'acting in scotland's interest' thing. i.e. what was on offer to sweeten the deal? Not sure a rainbow coalition would really have had that much to justify getting involved. As it turns out, it certainly doesn't seem to have been detrimental to snp momentum in general. I think the snp & plaid would've theoretically been jointly negotiating on the same (or v similar) terms, and on that basis, it's difficult to see plaid going for it. But even Lab+LD+Grn+Plaid would still have have needed 6 MPs from NI. V messy. DUP had enough with 8, but that couldn't have happened though, could it? SDLP (3) + Alliance (1) wasn't enough. Which leaves only Sinn Féin (5) - would that even have been acceptable, seeing as they don't even turn up at Westminster (do they?).
So whilst I have some sympathy for the 'combined popular vote' factor, the MP nunmbers didn't quite add up.
At the end of the day, Clegg saw Brown as damaged goods. But without Brown, a new Lab leader meant probable relentless damaging claims of 'unelected leaders'.
i *know* it isn't/wasn't gonna happen for many reasons. just want to make a point about it not being impossible or inconcievable and that nick clegg didn't exercise his choice for the right reasons.
i mean a lot of the reasons why it was impossikble seem to be pretty much 'oh but the right wing press would say it wasn't legitimate or elected' etc. i'm sure it would. but i have no reasons why this wasn't a more equitable outcome.
she just decided she wanted to make a point
I like how it's taken you five hours to remember the interview too. It's almost as if someone like Guido just wrote a blog on it.
ed's main argument is that AV would give expression to the left of centre, progressive majority in this country. you might argue that the majority isn't left of centre. but then why did nick clegg pose as someone of the centre left before the election? to win votes.
Did Ed Miliband say 'NO TO AV' at any point?
Labour would have had an even larger majority under AV. From what I've seen, the strong majority thing was more likely meant to mean that such a heavy majority isn't really a basis for messing around with the electoral system (unless you're fighting mainly on that issue).
More to the point, Labour probably simply didn't think electoral reform was actually very important - much like Cameron obviously didn't think too hard about his 'cast iron gurantee' on Europe or his pledge of 'no more top-down reform of the NHS. Milliband probably still doesn't think AV's very important in terms of what it actually means.
They'd have won larger majorities, so to complain they didn't do it then because they're only interested in gerrymandering is utter nonsense. If that's the only reason why he wants AV, that was the time to do it.
As for manifesto pledges - everyone knows what they're worth.
I said it would have won them a larger majority, and that's why Labour clearly aren't gerrymandering - by your own logic, if they were, they'd have done it then.
that because the conservative party is literally evil they must be telling them some objective truth all the time
fair play to him for being honest about it. he can't accuse D-Cam of having the the same reason for wanting to stick with FPTP.
more interesting was yesterday's debate between John and D-Cam, where D-Cam (i'm ashamed to say) showed John up for not understanding how AV works (or at least how i assume it works and also how D-Cam seems to think it works). John suggested that everyone's second vote would be counted, not just those who voted for the last placed party. this narked me right off as it made D-Cam's punchable mouth sound even more smarmy, and resulted in my anger almost causing me to swerve into off the road into a polo field just outside Shiplake.
I would prefer it if John was correct mind
and John was right, though he expressed it poorly
reading it again it does make sense, but John certainly didn't make it clear that the first choice would be recounted, rather than counting the second choice.
but the way that John said it on the radio, coupled with D-Cam's insistence made it sound like John thought his second choice would be counted as well as his first during the second round, ie if he voted for the leading party after round 1, his second choice would also be counted in round 2, thus the amount of votes counted overall would be doubled. now, whilst that isn't the case, I'd prefer it is it were.
and why does it matter, at the end of the day it won't matter to the electorate how the system works, just as long as they know how to write a flaming list. if they can't write a flaming list then we might be in trouble, but it's probably only fringe party voters that can't write a list so we should be safe
people don't understand how truckloads of stuff works, but they lap it up if they like the end result
I'm not sure i, or a considerable section of the rest of the country, fully understands our current system of government/elections, but i'm sure they'll be quite happy to stick with how things are (well, you know, not exactly happy, they'll moan about everything, but not really want things to change, because that's a bit scary isn't it?)
I mean, i hear there isn't even a post in the first past the post system. Mental, how's that supposed to work?!
Hmm, ok. Maybe that would explain these governments running down the royal mail so much? Thanks, i think it's beginning to make sense now.
Im no tory, I think their basic assumptions are wrong but labour are no saints. highly authoritarian on the civil liberties front, wars based on lies, gordon browns arrogant belief hed eliminated boom and bust so heavily borrowed through the good times which is as much to blame for our weak position as the banking crisis itself. I could understand not wanting to work with them
the lib dems are at their worst when they're going on about civil liberties, like they invented them or something. hasn't stopped excessive police powers on the many protests against all the other shit they're doing to the country. they've not delivered on civil liberties.
tries to take credit for the human rights act. erm. wut.
I never said that, he did go against established general rule that you dont borrow money when the country is doing well you save it so that you can stimulate the economy when times are bad, gordon decide times would never be bad again so carried on borrowing so that when the crisis hit we were already heavily in debt, putting us in an awful position, the economy is bad so we should really borrow away but we are having to instead make cuts because we already owe so much. Despite the swinging cuts we still brrow more money every day than is generated in tax and havent even begun to pay it back, if that wasnt brought under control lenders would up the interest rates and wed have to make even more cuts in the long run, labour are being pretty dishonest about that reality. The criss wasnt labours fault but the terrible financial situation we are in is and could have been avoided if brown had been more sensible in the good times
is an established general rule for governments.
Maybe not that bluntly, but certainly you reduce borrowing in good times so you can increase it when you really need it. Obviously governments will always borrow to some extent regardless of conditions but brown was very irresponsible in borrowing before the crisis hit
No, he wasn't. Borrowing was within reasonable and controllable limits, almost the entirety of the debt problem and all the deficit problem happened after the financial crisis.
But I will concede I am probably wrong
IFS said 'labour entered the current crisis with one of the largest structural budget deficits in the industrial world' that was in an article by osbourne though so cant really trust it
Let's not forget who Gorgeous Gideon wanted us to model our economy on not so long ago...
the table on p.17 of this doc is good:
So our structural deficit was pretty much the same as comparable economies (Germany's was a lot smaller and they're doing well and all the Scandinavian countries were running surpluses (and they are cool), but as LLB said, running a surplus didn't necessarily protect against the crisis).
and then it increased after that. It was at a reasonable level just before the crisis - lower than it was for much of the 90s.
Arguably he ran a small but not insignificant structural deficit when he shouldn't have done, but I don't think that's at the core of our problems - even if we'd been running a small surplus throughout Brown's time as Chancellor and PM, the deficit is high enough that we'd be struggling anyway.
to cover the cost of capital investment, up to a proportion of GDP. This was not broken.
Keynesians would say that you save in the good times.
And you're conflating debt and deficit.
1. Off the top of my head, around 75% of the deficit was acrued during the financial crisis and its aftermath
2. The deficit was not purely caused by spending, it was also caused by the collapse in tax income 2008-2010 as loads of people lost their jobs
3. Three countries that ran surpluses during the good times - Ireland, Spain and Iceland. And they've all got through unscathed...oh wait
Your point of they should've saved during the good times to help during the financial crisis is a bit like saying the dinosaurs should've learnt to build mud huts to shelter in when the asteroid hit the earth
My opinions are largely informed by hald understood metro articles.. But genuine question, why is it we are in a worse state than many other similar countries? Was it the over reliance on banking or something
Is that not a problem? Is the risk of lenders losing confidnce and raising rates not a serious concern?
Actual questions as I may have misunderstood the situation
(look at Greece, Portugal, Spain or Ireland, for example), but yes, the reason we had to bail out the banks, and the reason it was so crippling, was that the sector had become disproportionately large within the economy, especially compared to manufacturing.
Coupled to that, much of the growth in the wealth in the UK was down to property value increases, which were fuelled by personal debt. In other countries this wasn't the case, due to a larger and more stable rental sector, a larger home-building programme, and state-directed home-building programmes that targeted areas of need, rather than just profits.
With an interesting etymology too.
labour (mostly) really don't want pr
we all agree.
but... i, like creaky, wonder about the need for a full, formal coalition. scotland has apparently been happy with it's minority government. (and paddy power are allegedly already paying out on the result before the polling booths even open)