Does this P*** you off, although this doesn't affect me living over in Ireland, but I get UK TV, and on the news this is what you hear a lot at the moment from the Tory Party. "We are doing X unlike the last government who did Y that did Z to the economy" they say

 

It makes me think they are trying to justify their existence and what they are doing is correct and right, which is some cases it isn't

 

What do you think.

Unfortunate consequence of a system where only one of two parties is likely to be in government alone or lead a coalition, and where the media reports certain stories and angles moreso than others.

 

Equally, the fact that it gets trotted out so often means that when it's a genuinely valid reason it's met with a chorus of groans.

All parties are guilty of it, happened a lot under Blair/Brown too

All parties are guilty of it, happened a lot under Blair/Brown too

The Tories were still blaming Labour in the 1992 election, 13 years after they had last been in power. Even after that they tried to blame Labour for being a bad opposition. That's the worst example so far. At least Labour generally stopped blaming the Tories some time in their second term.

 

Unfortunately, all parties are guilty of it which, as Charlie said, means that legitimate attempts to blame the previous government tend to get ignored by the electorate.

(double post)

Edited January 9, 201411 yr by Danny

Unfortunate consequence of a system where only one of two parties is likely to be in government alone or lead a coalition, and where the media reports certain stories and angles moreso than others.

 

Equally, the fact that it gets trotted out so often means that when it's a genuinely valid reason it's met with a chorus of groans.

 

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. In the US, which is the most two party-dominated democracy in the world (I think), I'm not sure you get the same kind of mindless tribalism and point-scoring just for point-scoring's sake. Obviously it gets VERY vitriolic, but the vitriol is usually about actual issues.

 

This whole looking to score points out of anything, and over-personalising things, seems to be a very British politics thing. I suppose it's a consequence of the parties being so close together on policies that they feel they HAVE to increase the vitriol of their personal attacks to compensate and try to mark themselves out as different to the other in some way.

Edited January 9, 201411 yr by Danny

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. In the US, which is the most two party-dominated democracy in the world (I think), I'm not sure you get the same kind of mindless tribalism and point-scoring just for point-scoring's sake. Obviously it gets VERY vitriolic, but the vitriol is usually about actual issues.

To an extent, although I do think that there is some tremendous mudslinging between the parties over there. But if you come at it from the other way, I don't think it happens to anywhere near the same extent in more proportional systems. Germany for instance - there's enough substantial parties there that each needs its own niche, and there's not a lot of point in trying to invalidate another party as you'll still have more arguments left to win.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with that. In the US, which is the most two party-dominated democracy in the world (I think), I'm not sure you get the same kind of mindless tribalism and point-scoring just for point-scoring's sake. Obviously it gets VERY vitriolic, but the vitriol is usually about actual issues.

 

This whole looking to score points out of anything, and over-personalising things, seems to be a very British politics thing. I suppose it's a consequence of the parties being so close together on policies that they feel they HAVE to increase the vitriol of their personal attacks to compensate and try to mark themselves out as different to the other in some way.

The difference is that it is relatively rare for one party in the US to have full control, i.e. the presidency and both houses of Congress.

A lot of the mudslinging in US politics can be intra-party politics. e.g. the Tea Party vs the rest of the Republicans.

they're all squaring up for the election already, though Tories/Labour are just testing the ground for potential routes of voter dissatisfaction without committing to anything much. Nick set his table up today fairly well and aimed the barrels squarely at the Tory party, made valid points, summed up the last few years and why such and such took place and such and such didn't take place, how the rich should be taking their share of the pain (not just the poor) and how the mess Labour left is by no means sorted.

 

Be interesting to see how the other two react now the gloves are off. At the moment it's looking like voters have 3 versions of austerity to choose from, so it'll be the least appalling version for the majority of the population that's more likely to generate slightly more votes than the others. Very hung parliament anyone?

they're all squaring up for the election already, though Tories/Labour are just testing the ground for potential routes of voter dissatisfaction without committing to anything much. Nick set his table up today fairly well and aimed the barrels squarely at the Tory party, made valid points, summed up the last few years and why such and such took place and such and such didn't take place, how the rich should be taking their share of the pain (not just the poor) and how the mess Labour left is by no means sorted.

 

Be interesting to see how the other two react now the gloves are off. At the moment it's looking like voters have 3 versions of austerity to choose from, so it'll be the least appalling version for the majority of the population that's more likely to generate slightly more votes than the others. Very hung parliament anyone?

Clegg is, thankfully, now doing rather more to distance himself from the Tories. Interestingly, Ed Balls has reversed his earlier position and said that he would be prepared to work with Clegg which may be seen as admission that he doesn't think Labour will win a majority.

I really doubt Labour would ever work with the Lib Dems (irrespective of what the Labour leadership thinks, the activists wouldn't stand for it), and frankly I doubt whether the Lib Dems themselves would want it after their experience. It'll be a minority government next time if it's a hung parliament, imo, and that would probably be by far the best thing for everyone.

I really doubt Labour would ever work with the Lib Dems (irrespective of what the Labour leadership thinks, the activists wouldn't stand for it), and frankly I doubt whether the Lib Dems themselves would want it after their experience. It'll be a minority government next time if it's a hung parliament, imo, and that would probably be by far the best thing for everyone.

That depends on how short of a majority they are. If they are a few seats short then I'm sure they will try and go it alone. However, if they are as far short as the Tories last time, they are more likely to try to form a coalition. Activists may not like it but, unless Miliband changes the rules, they can't stop it any more than Tory activists could in 2010. Putting together a coalition programme which satisfies most Labour backbenchers should be easier than satisfying many of the current Tory backbenchers, a lot of whom still don't appear to have worked out that they did not win the last election.

I really doubt Labour would ever work with the Lib Dems (irrespective of what the Labour leadership thinks, the activists wouldn't stand for it), and frankly I doubt whether the Lib Dems themselves would want it after their experience. It'll be a minority government next time if it's a hung parliament, imo, and that would probably be by far the best thing for everyone.

 

..but if it IS democratically what the people have voted for, activists or not, it will happen. Pouting and stropping cos you don't get your own way and getting ever-more shouty and extreme may lead only to another generation of Tory values. Labour are frankly far more natural partners of the LibDems, always have been. Before Labour came along they were the party of opposition to Tory values and have been around a lot longer. Over the Blair-Brown years they've been more left-wing than Labour at times, in some areas..

 

Minority governments are toothless, often. The state of the nation can't afford faffing about, it needs urgent attention or there'll be yet another young generation sat at home feeling worthless. If activists don't realise that, Labour will become unelectable (again)

 

 

I really doubt Labour would ever work with the Lib Dems (irrespective of what the Labour leadership thinks, the activists wouldn't stand for it)

The activists wouldn't really have the decision on that one though. And I imagine if the Conservatives had enough seats to be a coalition option most activists would take a Lab-Lib coalition over another five years of this one any day.

That depends on how short of a majority they are. If they are a few seats short then I'm sure they will try and go it alone. However, if they are as far short as the Tories last time, they are more likely to try to form a coalition. Activists may not like it but, unless Miliband changes the rules, they can't stop it any more than Tory activists could in 2010. Putting together a coalition programme which satisfies most Labour backbenchers should be easier than satisfying many of the current Tory backbenchers, a lot of whom still don't appear to have worked out that they did not win the last election.

 

I don't think I agree... the SNP, Plaid Cymru and the Northern Irish parties are not crazy about Labour by any means, but they know their constituents would slaughter them if they ever propped up a Tory government. A Labour minority government would be viable, if Labour get 300+ seats, for that reason I think.

 

 

Minority governments are toothless, often.

 

Debateable -- look at Scotland, the SNP had a minority government and that was so wildly popular it propelled the SNP to becoming the most popular party in the country. There's an argument that the government having to negotiate and strike deals on every policy means it keeps the government on its toes and stops them making unforced errors, rather than the mess we've seen over the last few years of the Tories getting anything they want thanks to most Lib Dem MPs mindlessly waving through anything that comes their way.

 

Certainly from a Labour supporter's perspective, a minority Tory government over the last few years would've been FAR preferrable to what we've had -- even if they might have been even crazier on Europe, they would've probably been more moderate on the issues that matter most -- look how many Tory MPs abstained on the vote on the bedroom tax a few weeks ago. Hell, even Nadine Dorries on Question Time right now is putting up more of a defence of benefit-claimants than most Lib Dems have done in the last few years.

The activists wouldn't really have the decision on that one though. And I imagine if the Conservatives had enough seats to be a coalition option most activists would take a Lab-Lib coalition over another five years of this one any day.

 

But that's not going to realistically be on the table, since the Tories wouldn't allow it again and the same probably for the Lib Dems.

 

I think if anything the pressure over the next few years is going to come on the Lib Dems, to clarify whether their preference in a hung parliament would be to work with Labour or the Tories, and rule out working with the other. That's what happens in nearly every country with regular coalitions, in Germany the small parties always say which one of the two main parties they would work with. I think the Lib Dems are a bit deluded if they seriously think they can go into the next election once again saying "vote for us and find out what government your vote will go towards the next day!" Unless the Lib Dems rule out another coalition with the Tories before the next election, I doubt there will be any tolerance of helping out the Lib Dems either from Labour activists or voters, no matter what the leadership does.

 

(And I realise much of this contradicts my earlier whinge about point-scoring and tribalism, but....)

Edited January 9, 201411 yr by Danny

To declare beforehand which party they'd work with would be absolute madness strategically for them though. As it goes, not declaring means that there'll probably be people from both sides who are willing to use a Lib Dem vote where their preferred party is third as a tactical vote against the others (for example, I could still see some Labour voters in places like Eastleigh giving their vote to the Lib Dems to stop the Conservatives, and I could still see some Conservative voters in place like Bermondsey giving their vote to the Lib Dems to stop Labour). Simply because of how many seats they have over the Conservatives a Labour declaration would probably have some benefit for them (which would probably be mitigated to an extent by all the tactical Conservative votes they'd lose out on, and the fact that they'd be ceding any possible benefits from the previous five years by effectively campaigning against the government they were in), but I couldn't really see the Lib Dems not declaring having any serious chance of denting them any moreso than they already are.

 

Especially as I think most voters instinctively discern why it's pretty unreasonable to expect a third party to declare allegiance to one or the other, as they doom themselves to irrelevance and 'vote Clegg, get Miliband/Cameron', which really did Cleggmania in after the 'Clegg = Brown' scaremongering in the last few weeks of the campaign. It makes sense to have party allegiance in a multiparty system - that way it becomes an elegant way of dealing with the tensions within the left and the right while making sure they don't lose out overall - but it doesn't really make sense to demand party allegiance of a third party when they're the only significant parliamentary players outside of the big two.

But that's not going to realistically be on the table, since the Tories wouldn't allow it again and the same probably for the Lib Dems.

 

I think if anything the pressure over the next few years is going to come on the Lib Dems, to clarify whether their preference in a hung parliament would be to work with Labour or the Tories, and rule out working with the other. That's what happens in nearly every country with regular coalitions, in Germany the small parties always say which one of the two main parties they would work with. I think the Lib Dems are a bit deluded if they seriously think they can go into the next election once again saying "vote for us and find out what government your vote will go towards the next day!" Unless the Lib Dems rule out another coalition with the Tories before the next election, I doubt there will be any tolerance of helping out the Lib Dems either from Labour activists or voters, no matter what the leadership does.

 

(And I realise much of this contradicts my earlier whinge about point-scoring and tribalism, but....)

But the difference with other countries is that there are more major parties than our three. If the Lib Dems had said before the last election that a partnership with Labour was their preference and we had the same result, what would they have been able to do?

 

I would prefer to see more parties represented in parliament (brought about in part by a shake-up in the existing main parties). The electorate would then have more say in the make up of the government - even more so with a better electoral system. However, that's not what we have at the moment and no party can prejudge the result of the election. At the next election all three main parties should be expected to set out what their priorities are and give at least some indication of what their negotiating position would be in the event of another hung parliament.

To declare beforehand which party they'd work with would be absolute madness strategically for them though. As it goes, not declaring means that there'll probably be people from both sides who are willing to use a Lib Dem vote where their preferred party is third as a tactical vote against the others (for example, I could still see some Labour voters in places like Eastleigh giving their vote to the Lib Dems to stop the Conservatives, and I could still see some Conservative voters in place like Bermondsey giving their vote to the Lib Dems to stop Labour). Simply because of how many seats they have over the Conservatives a Labour declaration would probably have some benefit for them (which would probably be mitigated to an extent by all the tactical Conservative votes they'd lose out on, and the fact that they'd be ceding any possible benefits from the previous five years by effectively campaigning against the government they were in), but I couldn't really see the Lib Dems not declaring having any serious chance of denting them any moreso than they already are.

 

Especially as I think most voters instinctively discern why it's pretty unreasonable to expect a third party to declare allegiance to one or the other, as they doom themselves to irrelevance and 'vote Clegg, get Miliband/Cameron', which really did Cleggmania in after the 'Clegg = Brown' scaremongering in the last few weeks of the campaign. It makes sense to have party allegiance in a multiparty system - that way it becomes an elegant way of dealing with the tensions within the left and the right while making sure they don't lose out overall - but it doesn't really make sense to demand party allegiance of a third party when they're the only significant parliamentary players outside of the big two.

You seem to have been typing a very similar reply to mine while I was composing my waffle :P