Blaming the previous government is a pretty standard tactic in politics as a means of distracting you from the unpopular policies that they are having to bring in, regardless of the fact that whoever was in government would have done the same. The economic implosion in 2007 was as a result of overstretched and irresponsible lending and nothing to do with the government in power at the time- however there are times when it is worth reminding the voters of the absolute disasters that occurred under a previous administration - for example Black Wednesday in 1992 which ultimately resulted in the Tories disappearing for well over a decade (thankfully).

However there are times when it is worth reminding the voters of the absolute disasters that occurred under a previous administration - for example Black Wednesday in 1992 which ultimately resulted in the Tories disappearing for well over a decade (thankfully).

Which amusingly would've happened under Labour too, given we backed ERM...oddly enough, 1992 was probably a pretty good election to lose! We'd have been absolutely fucked if the biggest economic embarrassment in a generation had happened under our watch within six months of us taking government at a time when we weren't especially trusted on that front. And the only thing I can really think of from the Major era that we'd have probably not done was rail privatisation, which is a price to pay but probably one worth it considering how much Black Wednesday happening so soon would've done us in.

 

(This is the bit where I play mental alternative history and try to think where we'd be now. I'm guessing Heseltine would've taken over from Major and done some early form of Tory modernisation - but probably succeeded as he's twice the man Cameron is, and would've actually believed in what he was doing rather than just seeing modernisation as a convenient PR makeover - then won in 1997. John Smith would've probably carked it from Black Wednesday alone, so Blair would've been there and waiting in 1997 after Kinnock stepped down. Hezza holds off the election as long as possible out of fear of this bright young thing only to murder him on security and law and order in the 2002 election after 9/11, leaving...Gordon Brown as the winner of the fabled 2007 election? *.*

 

Don't look at me like that. SING WITH ME SUEDEHEAD.)

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.

 

That's definitely a risk, but the risk of them not declaring a preference for either party could mean that they alienate BOTH people who have a preference for either Tories or Labour AND people who don't have a particular preference eitherway simply because of the idea that the Lib Dems aren't being honest with people. The Lib Dems' strategy of saying they'll split the difference between the Tories' and Labour's policies might be clever on one level, but if it gets perceived that they just wants to stay in power at any price and don't have any rock-solid, unsacrifice-able principles then that's the most fatal thing for them.

 

which really did Cleggmania in after the 'Clegg = Brown' scaremongering in the last few weeks of the campaign.

 

I don't agree that's what did Clegg in at all, and certainly the voting stats don't back that up (the Lib Dems generally rose in 2010 more in the south than other places). I think the main thing that did him in is, people realised in the days coming up to the election that they couldn't really think of any great policies they'd proposed - people liked the general idea of what he said, but he'd been talking in generalisations and cliches rather than specific policies (apart from that "lifting people out of tax" thing, but that was and still is too technocratic-sounding to have any impact). Whereas, with Charles Kennedy, even if he didn't inspire people generally on the same level as Clegg did (though, if he had the luxury of debates, I think Kennedy might well have fared even better in them than Clegg did), he'd still drummed into people's minds one or two key policies that they were voting for if they voted Lib Dem.

Edited January 10, 201411 yr by Danny

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.

 

That's true to a point, but an exception is Germany up until the 1990s, when it was very much a 3-party system. There, the FDP did occasionally switch between the two main parties BUT crucially, before each election, they would always say which party they would be leaning towards in that particular election (apart from one exception where they switched over from one party to the other halfway through a term). I'm not saying the Lib Dems should be expected to choose between one of the parties and then forevermore stick with them, but it's generally accepted in most coalition systems that it's undemocratic for a small party not to indicate what type of government they'll be supporting in a particular election well ahead of polling day.

 

And as for what they should've done in 2010, I think they should've said "the Conservatives have the right to govern, but because our policies clash so much with theirs, we don't feel we can give them a blank cheque", then allowed them to form a government but made them haggle for their support on each individual issue. That would've given them in practice more influence over policy if they got an effective veto over anything (as well as probably more popularity), but, fairly on unfairly, it's hard to overcome the suspicion that a certain group at the top of the party decided to trade in influence for illusory "power".

Edited January 10, 201411 yr by Danny

I don't agree that's what did Clegg in at all, and certainly the voting stats don't back that up (the Lib Dems generally rose in 2010 more in the south than other places)

Yeah, and the Labour vote generally fell in 2010 more in the south than other places. The other significant left-wing party were always likely to be a strong receptacle for those gains after a three-term government which a lot of people were tired with - former Labour voters were always going to be more likely to give the Lib Dems a chance or be willing to tactically vote for them in 2010. The point is that the Lib Dems were likely to have done even better in the south had Cleggmania carried on as those votes dissipated towards the Tories - more of the losses the Lib Dems sustained in the polls in the last two weeks of the campaign corresponded with a rise in Conservative fortunes. Labour pretty much always hovered between the 27-31 mark during the campaign. The Conservatives spent most of it during Cleggmania in the low thirties, the Lib Dems spent most of Cleggmania in the high twenties/low thirties. Given the Tories ended up on 36% and the Lib Dems on 23%...

...

Edited January 10, 201411 yr by Danny

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....)

 

Well, given that Tory and Labour havent actually said anything about what they stand for in the next election that's rather difficult. What are they, mind-readers? The Libdem's did what they had to based on voter result, not what they wanted to do. Labour had been seriously compromised in their mis-handling of the economy (and other minor things like Iraq, Banker-bl*w-jobbing, I could go on...) and the country had decided it no longer wanted them in power. They weren't even the largest party. Had they allowed Tory minority control the danger would have been nothing done to resolve issues (outvoted over everything) while the country gets deeper and deeper into debt - let's not forget who put us there to the ridiculous point where valuable money needed for essential services is now handed over in billions in interest payments EVERY YEAR. Blair and Brown were one of the least amusing double-acts in history...

 

Point being Libdems have said more so far on what they DO stand for, and fairly clearly it's not Tory values. They've had to work with them for 5 years, they should know what they are talking about...

 

A perosonal message to Labour leadership: OK Mr. Miliband, let's see some policies, let's see how you plan to resolve the ongoing crisis...you've had 4 years to work on it!

That's true to a point, but an exception is Germany up until the 1990s, when it was very much a 3-party system. There, the FDP did occasionally switch between the two main parties BUT crucially, before each election, they would always say which party they would be leaning towards in that particular election (apart from one exception where they switched over from one party to the other halfway through a term). I'm not saying the Lib Dems should be expected to choose between one of the parties and then forevermore stick with them, but it's generally accepted in most coalition systems that it's undemocratic for a small party not to indicate what type of government they'll be supporting in a particular election well ahead of polling day.

 

And as for what they should've done in 2010, I think they should've said "the Conservatives have the right to govern, but because our policies clash so much with theirs, we don't feel we can give them a blank cheque", then allowed them to form a government but made them haggle for their support on each individual issue. That would've given them in practice more influence over policy if they got an effective veto over anything (as well as probably more popularity), but, fairly on unfairly, it's hard to overcome the suspicion that a certain group at the top of the party decided to trade in influence for illusory "power".

But in Germany in those years it was pretty certain that the FDP would be in a position to put either the CDU/CSU or the SPD into power as the number of seats taken by other parties was negligible. With the nationalists and the N Ireland parties, that isn't the case in the UK.

 

On your second point, as I'v said before, if the Lib Dems had sat back and let the Tories get on with it, the Tories would have manipulated things so that there would have been another election within a year. At that election they - and probably Labour as well - would have said that a Lib Dem vote was a vote for instability. That, along with the support of the press and their choice of policy which they failed to get through, could well have led to a Tory majority.

Well, given that Tory and Labour havent actually said anything about what they stand for in the next election that's rather difficult. What are they, mind-readers? The Libdem's did what they had to based on voter result, not what they wanted to do. Labour had been seriously compromised in their mis-handling of the economy (and other minor things like Iraq, Banker-bl*w-jobbing, I could go on...) and the country had decided it no longer wanted them in power. They weren't even the largest party. Had they allowed Tory minority control the danger would have been nothing done to resolve issues (outvoted over everything) while the country gets deeper and deeper into debt - let's not forget who put us there to the ridiculous point where valuable money needed for essential services is now handed over in billions in interest payments EVERY YEAR. Blair and Brown were one of the least amusing double-acts in history...

 

Point being Libdems have said more so far on what they DO stand for, and fairly clearly it's not Tory values. They've had to work with them for 5 years, they should know what they are talking about...

 

A perosonal message to Labour leadership: OK Mr. Miliband, let's see some policies, let's see how you plan to resolve the ongoing crisis...you've had 4 years to work on it!

Even ignoring actual policy like the energy price freeze, it doesn't take a genius to work out where both parties are going with their 2015 campaign unless you're wilfully ignoring it. And you'd assume that anyone within Westminster would have even more of a clue.

Even ignoring actual policy like the energy price freeze, it doesn't take a genius to work out where both parties are going with their 2015 campaign unless you're wilfully ignoring it. And you'd assume that anyone within Westminster would have even more of a clue.

 

forcing the private sector to drop profits is hardly a real policy, it's political propagandism and not a long-term solution, it's a short-term attempt to get votes and avoid real policies. Sorry, but it's true...

 

A real policy would be to re-nationalise the lot of 'em and make sure prices are as low as they can be. Or fix a permanent profit-margin as percentage of profits. Or be open to monthly price comparisons on a government website with guaranteed accuracy...

 

As to whether or not everyone in westminster knows where both parties are going, that's still assuming a lot, both could easily state quite clearly what they stand for (but they don't) what they plan to do (hello Labour party). Personally, as I said, MY opinion is they've started the groundwork for making it obvious they are a party for the poor more than a party for the rich. I think ol' Vince's attacks (the man at the centre of media Lib-Dem-ism) over the years on rich powerful bankers, powerful media moguls, rich multiple property-owners make it fairly clear that he was prepared to do what the Labour party and Tory-driven coalition singularly failed to do, and has so far made no noises that they intend to do anything about.

 

Of course, feel free to correct me with examples those statements are incorrect, I may have missed some important announcements or speeches....

Edited January 10, 201411 yr by popchartfreak

forcing the private sector to drop profits is hardly a real policy, it's political propagandism and not a long-term solution, it's a short-term attempt to get votes and avoid real policies. Sorry, but it's true...

 

A real policy would be to re-nationalise the lot of 'em and make sure prices are as low as they can be. Or fix a permanent profit-margin as percentage of profits. Or be open to monthly price comparisons on a government website with guaranteed accuracy...

I don't know what your definition of "policy" is but you're clutching at straws if you don't accept that the energy price cap will make a real difference.

 

Or how about scrapping the Bedroom Tax, is that not a real policy either?

But in Germany in those years it was pretty certain that the FDP would be in a position to put either the CDU/CSU or the SPD into power as the number of seats taken by other parties was negligible. With the nationalists and the N Ireland parties, that isn't the case in the UK.

 

On your second point, as I'v said before, if the Lib Dems had sat back and let the Tories get on with it, the Tories would have manipulated things so that there would have been another election within a year. At that election they - and probably Labour as well - would have said that a Lib Dem vote was a vote for instability. That, along with the support of the press and their choice of policy which they failed to get through, could well have led to a Tory majority.

 

That would've been a risk, but I don't really think it would've been that likely. The Conservatives by this point were a party that hadn't managed to win a majority in 13 years, including one election just before which had practically fallen into their lap; I really don't think David Cameron and George Osborne, power-hungry as they come, would've taken the risk of giving it up within months just for the sake of their principles.

That would've been a risk, but I don't really think it would've been that likely. The Conservatives by this point were a party that hadn't managed to win a majority in 13 years, including one election just before which had practically fallen into their lap; I really don't think David Cameron and George Osborne, power-hungry as they come, would've taken the risk of giving it up within months just for the sake of their principles.

The Tories - with the enthusiastic support of their friends in the press - have been promoting a wildly distorted interpretation of the Human Rights Act ever since Labour introduced it. (Of course, many of those same papers are also threatening to take the government to court under precisely that Act over press regulation but hypocrisy has always been one of their strong points.) They would have attempted to repeal the Act and then called an election when they failed. Any attempts by Labour and the Lib Dems to tell the truth about the Act (including the fact that the UK would have joined a club which currently has just one member, Belarus, Europe's last remaining dictatorship) would have been in vain. The Tories would have fought an election pledging to undo one of the few real achievements of Churchill's peacetime administration.

The Tories - with the enthusiastic support of their friends in the press - have been promoting a wildly distorted interpretation of the Human Rights Act ever since Labour introduced it. (Of course, many of those same papers are also threatening to take the government to court under precisely that Act over press regulation but hypocrisy has always been one of their strong points.) They would have attempted to repeal the Act and then called an election when they failed. Any attempts by Labour and the Lib Dems to tell the truth about the Act (including the fact that the UK would have joined a club which currently has just one member, Belarus, Europe's last remaining dictatorship) would have been in vain. The Tories would have fought an election pledging to undo one of the few real achievements of Churchill's peacetime administration.

 

The act is hated in this country

 

We are unable to deport terrorists and hate preachers because of their 'right to a family life' and prisoners want the vote etc so until we get rid of the ridiculous abuse of the HRA by people then there is rightly strong public support to scrap it

 

I would be in favour of radical reform of it but if that doesn't happen then get rid of it

...apart from the fact we clearly are able to deport these people. Did you miss the whole bit where we deported Abu Qatada in the end?

Another charming example of "it's not perfect, so let's get rid of all of it" Toryism. See also the NHS, the EU and most of the country's public transport.

...apart from the fact we clearly are able to deport these people. Did you miss the whole bit where we deported Abu Qatada in the end?

 

After how many years and appeals and millions in legal costs to the taxpayer?

 

It is exceptionally hard getting someone deported these days because of the HRA

Another charming example of "it's not perfect, so let's get rid of all of it" Toryism. See also the NHS, the EU and most of the country's public transport.

 

We have ringfenced the NHS, it is one of the few departments that has barely seen a cut in real terms

 

The EU we want to stay in the EU but with radical reform of our relationship to it

If by ring fence you mean sell to the highest bidder I agree!

I don't know what your definition of "policy" is but you're clutching at straws if you don't accept that the energy price cap will make a real difference.

 

Or how about scrapping the Bedroom Tax, is that not a real policy either?

 

It's a temporary non-governmental crowd-pleaser. Of course it would make a minor difference for a year. It won't, however, do a thing about the massive debts of the government, or do a thing after it runs out (after the election of course). It's a gimmick. Might as well just say we'll tax the banks for a one-off year to compensate for the mess they made - oh hang on the government did that too and it didn't amount to much or reduce the deficit or improve the lives of anyone in need...!

 

If it's not a permanent promise to not make vast profits for what is an essential service then it's just tinkering around the problem edges - something Blair made an artform. I'd happily re-nationalise them, personally, it's been effectively a cartel (just like all big biz ends up) for some time. Does this not all sound a little odd? That me, a LibDem voter, is arguing for more left-wing policies than the Labour party have proposed for the last 20 years....? Sounds odd to me :huh:

 

Bedroom tax, I'm not in favour of, because all it's doing is making a bad situation worse, it's not actually helping anything much, but that's also a farty little attempt to reverse something that wont make much difference to anything except the few people affected by it. I think one spare room per household is reasonable. I would however consider that people in rented accommodation with three empty rooms need to be re-housed into a decent smaller property near where they already live. We need more council houses, scrapping Right To Buy. That's a proper Labour party policy. Where is it?