Doing what the electorate voted for?

 

as in rejecting Labour soundly, giving the Libdems no option but to making alliance with the largest party. The only real difference in policy between labour/Tory was the speed of the cuts, and it was Labour who had created the mess. Sorry to keep harping on about it, but facts, as they say, is facts. labour dropped us in the mess and had 10 years to do something about it, and failed miserably. they were (and to an extent still are) discredited as a competent governing force.

53% of those who turned out voted for Labour and the Lib Dems - parties that has committed to slower rates of deficit reduction. 36% voted for the Conservatives and the current plan of action.

 

Now, you may take the view that the problem was so severe that it needed the democratic will to be overridden. That's a point that can have a fair argument made for it, albeit not one I'd agree with. You can't make the point that this is what the people of the UK voted for though.

 

pretty much refer to this in my previous comment. That's how parliament is structured, for better or worse (and I would argue, worse, but the country disagreed when it had the option to change it). It's never been about percentages, it's always been about seats and who's in power - that's the democratic will, regardless of how much arguable percentage of the country is for or against something (assuming every member of every party has identical views).

 

Of course, had we Proportional Representation then the views of the LibDems over the last 15 or 20 years (25 to 30% of voters at times) may have had a substantial effect on government policies. Such as doing something earlier about the crisis or avoiding it entirely. Hypothetically speaking of course, but bearing in mind Vincey-boy was whingeing about stuff that mattered while more powerful heads were stuck in the sand.

I'm not sure there's really many people who would be particularly interested in voting for a pro-Europe party though? Although I adamantly believe the number of people who have a pathological hatred of the EU is far far less than the Tories seem to think, there's still probably even less people who are enthusiastically pro-EU -- most people just don't really give a crap one way or the other.

 

The reason why there's a strong chance the Lib Dems will come 5th is because they ALWAYS poll significantly below however they're doing generally in European elections (in 2009, they came a full 10% lower in the Euro elections than they did in the locals on the same day), while the Greens typically overperform, probably because like UKIP people like the chance to protest against the mainstream parties in an election they see as meaningless (even moreso than local elections, since a lot of people atleast think local councillors have some direct impact on what happens in their communities, whereas frankly most people don't think MEPs have any impact at all, rightly or wrongly).

 

Maybe. I guess it all boils down to how loyal LibDems are when it comes to voting, what exactly IS their hardcore fanbase, to put it in pop terms....should get the answer before long... B-)

Yeah, the Labour Party was totally responsible for the global financial crisis.

Yeah, the Labour Party was totally responsible for the global financial crisis.

 

oooh in denial I see B-) They were only partly-repsonsible for the world crisis, but mostly responsible for the UK crisis. Brown set up the FSA, oversaw the banks, wooed them, let them do what they want, ignored warnings about the housing market inflating beyond belief and borrowed breathtakingly huge sums of money to pay for things we as a country couldnt afford. Everyone went money-mad and Labour stoked the fires and left it like that cos they were piss-scared putting the breaks on before it was too late would cost them the previous election. They put self-interest ahead of the country's interest. They failed to put proper regulation in place to stop crooks and they failed to alter the worst of Thatcher's calamitous laws.

 

Just to repeat, the global financial crisis spiralled out from the USA banks and housing market but it was the London branch of JPMorgan investment arms that invented the kiss of death selling of crap lying and lending to idiots. We have such talented yuppies here, the best in the world. Helped to create a world-wide cover up and greed is good mentality.

 

Sorry and all that if I'm reminding supporters just what they did, but they did it and many other parties through the world of varying political persuasions did the same. Happened to be Labour in the UK. The reason Mark whatsisface got hired to be BOE bigknob is cos Canada had bank regulation and managed to avoid the worst of the world's sins and problems. Interestingly there are signs now that their housing market has become a bubble about to burst too...

 

Some lessons just don't get learned....

oooh in denial I see B-) They were only partly-repsonsible for the world crisis, but mostly responsible for the UK crisis. Brown set up the FSA, oversaw the banks, wooed them, let them do what they want, ignored warnings about the housing market inflating beyond belief and borrowed breathtakingly huge sums of money to pay for things we as a country couldnt afford. Everyone went money-mad and Labour stoked the fires and left it like that cos they were piss-scared putting the breaks on before it was too late would cost them the previous election. They put self-interest ahead of the country's interest. They failed to put proper regulation in place to stop crooks and they failed to alter the worst of Thatcher's calamitous laws.

 

Just to repeat, the global financial crisis spiralled out from the USA banks and housing market but it was the London branch of JPMorgan investment arms that invented the kiss of death selling of crap lying and lending to idiots. We have such talented yuppies here, the best in the world. Helped to create a world-wide cover up and greed is good mentality.

 

Sorry and all that if I'm reminding supporters just what they did, but they did it and many other parties through the world of varying political persuasions did the same. Happened to be Labour in the UK. The reason Mark whatsisface got hired to be BOE bigknob is cos Canada had bank regulation and managed to avoid the worst of the world's sins and problems. Interestingly there are signs now that their housing market has become a bubble about to burst too...

 

Some lessons just don't get learned....

The UK government have been hands-off with the finance industry for the last 30+ years. You cite setting up the FSA as a bad thing, and yes it had its shortcomings and its scope wasn't close to broad enough, but it's been the closest the finance industry has been observed in the modern era. Its swift dissolution once the Tories were voted in leaves us further than ever from adequate regulation.

 

Your whole post is full of clichés and myths and I'll wait for someone else to respond to the rest of them!

A deficit of 33 billion is a breathtakingly huge sum? I don't think we should've been running it (I think we'd have had the capacity for a much bigger stimulus had we been running a surplus all the way until 2007) but LOL. It was a pretty marginal deficit in the broad scheme of things (until the crisis) as a proportion of GDP..

 

And the world crisis kind of was the biggest part of the British crisis, what with is having an economy based on international trade and all.

I'm just amused that he thinks a party formed by right-wing Labour dissenters would have done any better.

I'm just amused that he thinks a party formed by right-wing Labour dissenters would have done any better.

The Lib Dems aren't HALF the party the SDP was!

 

~ Owen 4eva ~

The UK government have been hands-off with the finance industry for the last 30+ years. You cite setting up the FSA as a bad thing, and yes it had its shortcomings and its scope wasn't close to broad enough, but it's been the closest the finance industry has been observed in the modern era. Its swift dissolution once the Tories were voted in leaves us further than ever from adequate regulation.

 

Your whole post is full of clichés and myths and I'll wait for someone else to respond to the rest of them!

 

A watchdog that doesnt watch is a failure. Brown and Blair were in charge and they failed. Thatcher changed the rules to allow for bigger more dangerous banking and in the US Clinton was inspired by that and in return New Labour. They went along with that. Where, exactly, are the facts wrong here...? The banking industry was wisely regulated for 70 years before Thatcher & New Labour opened the floodgates. This is not myth or cliche it's accepted more or less by the experts and politicians that's what happened. The current changes are an attempt to start making improvements where New Labour singularly and disastrously failed. For crying out loud, the FSA even after the crisis and all that had happened were still getting it wrong! (Co-op)

 

I'm not the one attempting to rewrite history to suit electioneering and somehow try and shift the blame. Leaving office does not wipe the slate.

 

I'm more than happy to push New Labour's successes, such as Northern Ireland, something I never thought would ever happen, equality legislation, reversing local government privatisation of staff (in some cases), benefits for the poor etc etc so I'm not spinning here on behalf of a party who will never hold office. I have always known they will never hold power, which leaves them free to say what's right not what's convenient to get power.

A deficit of 33 billion is a breathtakingly huge sum? I don't think we should've been running it (I think we'd have had the capacity for a much bigger stimulus had we been running a surplus all the way until 2007) but LOL. It was a pretty marginal deficit in the broad scheme of things (until the crisis) as a proportion of GDP..

 

And the world crisis kind of was the biggest part of the British crisis, what with is having an economy based on international trade and all.

 

figures are convenient spin tools. Think of it as we pay out vast sums in interest because we borrowed so much that it messed up the economy big time and money needed for crucial jobs is now wasted on that and will be for the forseeable future. Most people would prefer a target date for when we earn as a country what we pay out, barring infrastructure projects which would hopefully be investments for the future (not many of those under New Labour by the way)

I'm just amused that he thinks a party formed by right-wing Labour dissenters would have done any better.

 

The Liberals (MY party) is much much older than the Labour party. The fact that a few rebels joined up after their Labour breakaway party had failed, apart from the name change, wasn't of much significance. You might want to check wikipedia or just ask some old gits like me who were around at the time and voted for them before Owen & co.....

The Liberals (MY party) is much much older than the Labour party. The fact that a few rebels joined up after their Labour breakaway party had failed, apart from the name change, wasn't of much significance. You might want to check wikipedia or just ask some old gits like me who were around at the time and voted for them before Owen & co.....

Don't patronise me, I know exactly who the Liberals are - they were a spent force by the '80s before the SDP came along, and I can't exactly see either part as being the home of many soothsayers who could have prevented a global financial meltdown from impacting on the UK.

Don't patronise me, I know exactly who the Liberals are - they were a spent force by the '80s before the SDP came along, and I can't exactly see either part as being the home of many soothsayers who could have prevented a global financial meltdown from impacting on the UK.

 

Fair enough. I won't patronise you if you don't keep on patronising others with cheap personal shots - as I keep picking up on: "I'm just amused that he thinks a party formed by right-wing Labour dissenters would have done any better." Use of the "he" depersonalising me, and speaking to your imagined adoring crowds. Take an analysis or series of comments, pervert it, make assumptions that weren't in the text and try and turn it into an attack on something else rather than answer the points raised. It's knee-jerk spoilt-child reaction. You don't like the LibDems, I get it...but the only excuse Labour offer for the ongoing crisis is "it's a world crisis not our fault mate". If that's true and Labour are powerless to affect anything that happens in the UK then what's the point of voting them back in - taking that point of view logically then if they had no policies to stop it, cure it, deal with it, why should they suddenly know what to do about it now and why would anyone vote for them? Labour (Miliband) still needs to convince voters they have the answers and I'm genuinely interested to see what they offer.

 

Yes the SDP nearly killed off Labour Party support (percentage wise about the same) and the Liberals weren't popular for decades. Anything that may or may not have happened after the Falklands invasion is all hypothetical, you have no way of knowing what might or might not have happened, only what actually did happen. That's speculative opinion. My opinion is Social Democracy (the Liberal tradition) will always be relevant and when the two main parties bugger it up they will be there pointing it out.

 

 

Fair enough. I won't patronise you if you don't keep on patronising others with cheap personal shots - as I keep picking up on: "I'm just amused that he thinks a party formed by right-wing Labour dissenters would have done any better." Use of the "he" depersonalising me, and speaking to your imagined adoring crowds. Take an analysis or series of comments, pervert it, make assumptions that weren't in the text and try and turn it into an attack on something else rather than answer the points raised. It's knee-jerk spoilt-child reaction. You don't like the LibDems, I get it...but the only excuse Labour offer for the ongoing crisis is "it's a world crisis not our fault mate". If that's true and Labour are powerless to affect anything that happens in the UK then what's the point of voting them back in - taking that point of view logically then if they had no policies to stop it, cure it, deal with it, why should they suddenly know what to do about it now and why would anyone vote for them? Labour (Miliband) still needs to convince voters they have the answers and I'm genuinely interested to see what they offer.

 

Yes the SDP nearly killed off Labour Party support (percentage wise about the same) and the Liberals weren't popular for decades. Anything that may or may not have happened after the Falklands invasion is all hypothetical, you have no way of knowing what might or might not have happened, only what actually did happen. That's speculative opinion. My opinion is Social Democracy (the Liberal tradition) will always be relevant and when the two main parties bugger it up they will be there pointing it out.

The trouble with the last bit being that social democracy has effectively become the Labour Party's raison d'etre since people realised that proper democratic socialism unfortunately isn't coming any time soon. Kind of treads on your ground slightly. All the more easy when, within literally days of the electorate giving us a kicking for partially abandoning our core vote, the "alternative" rolls over and lets the Tories push through huge parts of their manifesto despite (and I can't repeat this strongly enough) the majority of voters deciding it was a bad idea vis a vis deficit reduction and so on.

 

As for the other bit, how is "he" depersonalising you? Imagined adoring crowds are a lovely image but it's a little off the mark - on an internet message board people aren't exactly looking for dramatic prose, it was a simple comment and if it came across as cheap and personal then IT'S THE INTERNET. It was a completely valid observation as well given you still haven't addressed the matter of where these radically different economic ideas were going to come from within the Lib Dem movement.

I'm shocked. We've had great figures on the fall in unemployment in the last few hours and Craig hasn't started screaming about inevitable 100-seat majorities and hammering out tired soundbites about how Cameron's putting the Great back into Great Britain yet.

It will have about as much impact as the other economic statistics that were supposed to give the Conservatives some surge. People just don't put any faith in statistics when they clash so badly with their real-life experiences.

I think this one will have more impact than the others if it carries on this way, but I don't think it will be enough unless the Conservatives start coming out with more things like the speculated increase in the minimum wage.

I have a general (very unscientific) test that, if even the Daily Mail commenters are unimpressed by supposed "good news" for the Conservatives, it's DEFINITELY not going to impress the public at large. That test worked when Craig was joyfully screeching that the autumn statement was a "game-changer" or whatever just because Conservative MPs had managed to shout loudly at Ed Balls, yet on the Daily Mail site, all the comments were people being horrified at the scenes of MPs acting like children. And it's the same today: the best-rated comments are all along the lines of "what good is a better statistic if it's all just crappy, short-term jobs, terrible pay and zero-hour contracts?"

Edited January 22, 201411 yr by Danny

http://labourlist.org/2014/01/8-reasons-la...erall-majority/

 

Interesting article, Craig will bleat on about the source being biased but it's hard to argue with a lot of it. In essence:

 

1. The people rating Miliband poorly and being optimistic about the economy in the polls are the same ones giving Labour a solid lead

2. A dead heat in vote share would leave Labour close to a majority and 40 ahead of the Tories

3. Labour are doing better in marginals than nationally

4. Disenfranchised Lib Dems who switched after 2010 have no reason to come back

5. Labour can keep former Lib Dems on board more easily than the Tories can sway those flirting with UKIP

6. Where will the new Tory votes come from to take them above 36%?

7. The lack of a large movement from the Tories to Labour since 2010 means there's less to swing back in 2015

8. Massive, disappearing poll leads before '92 and '97 came from bad polling in an era before a fourth party of any size