I really am quite stunned that you claim you never hear people say "all your policies are the same". I thought you agreed ages ago that people did always say it, but just that, in spite of the complaints, that being "radical" wouldn't work just because when it comes to the crunch people don't take risks -- which I obviously don't agree with either, but atleast it's a feasible argument. But irrespective of what people would do if something different was offered, it's still nevertheless THE number one complaint atm that both the main parties are offering the same thing, and that "No matter who I vote for, nothing will change".

 

I do hear "all your policies are the same" but generally only on certain policy issues. Immigration is a massive one - many people simply don't agree with the relatively socially liberal, pro-immigration (as they see it, anyway) stance of the three main party leaders. As a general rule it's probably true that any UKIP "pet" topic will be one where a lot of the public regards the Westminster parties as being "all the same" (which Farage exploits in order to perpetuate his populist, anti-establishment image). Anything UKIP never bang on about is more likely to be something where the public can distinguish between Labour and the Tories.

I'll put my hands up here and say that I wasn't quite right and Charlie is - you do sometimes hear 'all your policies are the same', but only ever really on immigration from people who have it as their big issue. Outside of that though, it only comes up in either very specialised cases (LEA teachers on education up until fairly recently) or from people on the fringes (Greens/TUSC/Respect. Obviously Ukip but that's the immigration thing). 'Your policies are all the same' just isn't something typical voters ever bring up, mainly because most of them don't know the policies to begin with to be able to say that.

 

I didn't agree that people say 'all your policies are the same', but I did agree that 'you're all the same' is something that people always say - and it needs careful distinguishing, because there are a lot of things that covers. I'm coming more and more around to the view that it's more a personality rather than a policy thing, if only because I tend to find that where people haven't made their mind up, it mainly comes down to having either not thought about it yet (but they do come to a decision based on the policies) or a basic mistrust/dislike of a given leader.

 

In the absence of not having thought about it, 'you're all the same' means that in the couple of minutes you pay attention to politics in a day, you notice that all the main parties are putting up roughly similar leaders and figures with roughly similar backgrounds and accents, all using roughly the same rhetoric, and typically agreeing on catch-all axioms, and most of the time you don't remember the policy that went with those axioms. When it comes down to it around election time and pay attention, I think they do notice those policies, do notice those differences (unless they've got a bugbear with something all the parties agree on/can't do anything about - so Ukip voters on immigration and left-wingers who want something radically different on the economy), and to the point, still shy away from radicalism - either for fear of it or just straight up not believing it can be delivered*, even if they agreed with it (which I don't think a lot would for a wholesale radical left programme, rather than one which was broadly moderate left but had the odd big left policy).

 

Yup, that's exactly what's going to solve an unprecedented political crisis with record levels of fury -- a double dose more of the same old politics that created the problem.

Obviously, I disagree that it was the politics that created the problem. I think New Labour birthed a monster really in terms of the presentational template it laid down. I doubt you'd get 'you're all the same' if you had, say, Chuka Umunna up against Theresa May up against Vince Cable up against Louise Bours, with all the different backgrounds, presentational styles and rhetoric that would bring.

 

*and it's a big reason I hate it whenever ANYBODY says they're coming up with a big radical offer, either left or moderate, unless they actually are - I think it's done huge amounts to add to that feeling that government can't do anything, because for the last twenty years basically every policy platform has been 'big and radical' when most of the time it's been gradualist stuff or a big institutional change which brings decent improvement, but nothing out of this world. That feeling that government can't change much I think contributes more to 'nothing will change' than a general sense that every party is offering the same platform.

I'll put my hands up here and say that I wasn't quite right and Charlie is - you do sometimes hear 'all your policies are the same', but only ever really on immigration from people who have it as their big issue. Outside of that though, it only comes up in either very specialised cases (LEA teachers on education up until fairly recently) or from people on the fringes (Greens/TUSC/Respect. Obviously Ukip but that's the immigration thing). 'Your policies are all the same' just isn't something typical voters ever bring up, mainly because most of them don't know the policies to begin with to be able to say that.

 

No, it definitely goes wider than just immigration, atleast round here. Last time I did some canvassing a couple of years ago in Wirral, people were constantly saying they didn't think anything would be any different if there was a Labour government in, how Labour supported the cuts just as much as the Tories did (in fairness, there was a factor here in that Labour had got elected to the local council a year or two before that and people couldn't understand why they wouldn't have the power to stop the cuts) and how no matter which party was in, the rich always seemed to get richer while the average person's incomes were always getting squeezed evermore. Just because normal people don't use the words "neoliberal dogma" or "Establishment" or even in most cases "austerity", that doesn't mean that there aren't a LOT of people who would agree with the essence of Owen Jones et al's argument.

 

(Though "privatising the NHS" IS something that seems to have passed from the left-wing blogosphere to normal people, much as the New Labour bigwigs might wish it was not so.)

 

 

Obviously, I disagree that it was the politics that created the problem. I think New Labour birthed a monster really in terms of the presentational template it laid down. I doubt you'd get 'you're all the same' if you had, say, Chuka Umunna up against Theresa May up against Vince Cable up against Louise Bours, with all the different backgrounds, presentational styles and rhetoric that would bring.

 

Except we already saw in the 2010 election a big contrast in styles between Cameron and Brown in virtually every way (apart from both being men), and yet people still said they were "all the same". Not to mention Farage is not exactly presentationally that different to the other three, but stands out as not being "the same" precisely because he atleast says something that's "interesting" (horrifyingly so) and distinctive.

Edited September 13, 201410 yr by Danny

The expenses scandal was (and still is to a degree) a big part of that in 2010 though, along with a sense that the same two parties had been in forever and just broke promises all the time. Hence Clegg capitalising on that (although again, a lot pulled back and stuck with what they knew - when it came to the crunch, people said it a lot during the campaign, but when it came down to it...) - and yeah, the Lib Dems' turnaround I think definitely contributes to it as well. When you go into an election thinking all politicians are the same, lying and cheating and stealing and saying anything to get into power, then the party that promises to change that does the same (and ironically far more than the original two parties ever did), it's only going to reinforce that message even more - doubly so for voters who changed to them/gave them their first vote on the basis of that.

 

The rich getting richer while everyone else stays the same is one of the more common complaints I hear, but still not all that often. It might be different in core Labour areas but I really don't think most floating voters genuinely think an Ed Miliband Labour government would just cosy up to the rich. The problem is that it's one area where polls say one thing about the policy hypothetically but the ridiculously lock-step reaction from business always means the reaction never reaches those polling heights. It's an area where I think the only way it could be done is as a shock offensive while already in government, and hand in hand with using it to cut taxes on small business or something to try and divide the opposition and pit them against each other, while warding off spittle-flecked 'THIS IS ANTI-ASPIRATION!!!!111!' monologues on Newsnight.

The expenses scandal was (and still is to a degree) a big part of that in 2010 though, along with a sense that the same two parties had been in forever and just broke promises all the time. Hence Clegg capitalising on that (although again, a lot pulled back and stuck with what they knew - when it came to the crunch, people said it a lot during the campaign, but when it came down to it...) - and yeah, the Lib Dems' turnaround I think definitely contributes to it as well. When you go into an election thinking all politicians are the same, lying and cheating and stealing and saying anything to get into power, then the party that promises to change that does the same (and ironically far more than the original two parties ever did), it's only going to reinforce that message even more - doubly so for voters who changed to them/gave them their first vote on the basis of that.

 

The rich getting richer while everyone else stays the same is one of the more common complaints I hear, but still not all that often. It might be different in core Labour areas but I really don't think most floating voters genuinely think an Ed Miliband Labour government would just cosy up to the rich. The problem is that it's one area where polls say one thing about the policy hypothetically but the ridiculously lock-step reaction from business always means the reaction never reaches those polling heights. It's an area where I think the only way it could be done is as a shock offensive while already in government, and hand in hand with using it to cut taxes on small business or something to try and divide the opposition and pit them against each other, while warding off spittle-flecked 'THIS IS ANTI-ASPIRATION!!!!111!' monologues on Newsnight.

 

Hasn't the Scottish referendum shown how little attention people pay to businesses? People put them in the same bucket as politicians. Even "Tory boy" Lord Ashcroft in that big study of the 2010 election said that big businesses piling in on some small tax rise Labour planned had backfired (page 50: " the collection of hundreds of business endorsements for the Conservative policy, including dozens from famous names left the voters nonplussed...There might well be good reasons to support the policy, but the fact that it would make certain businessmen richer was not one of them").

Hasn't the Scottish referendum shown how little attention people pay to businesses? People put them in the same bucket as politicians. Even "Tory boy" Lord Ashcroft in that big study of the 2010 election said that big businesses piling in on some small tax rise Labour planned had backfired (page 50: " the collection of hundreds of business endorsements for the Conservative policy, including dozens from famous names left the voters nonplussed...There might well be good reasons to support the policy, but the fact that it would make certain businessmen richer was not one of them").

I don't think so entirely (and I think it's false to draw from the referendum that people pay little attention to businesses - just that they aren't any longer the be-all and end-all). I think they're losing relevance (hence why I think it's doable in the first place), but the 50p rate announcement in January getting absolutely savaged from all corners and Labour slumping in the polls consistently for a week or two after (with little else to draw towards that) makes me think they're still influential enough to freeze out hypothetical opposition policy (especially if it's in 'THIS WILL STALL THE RECOVERY' mode). I'd rather it was done from within government if only because the results shut down that kind of hyperbole pretty quickly.

The expenses scandal was (and still is to a degree) a big part of that in 2010 though, along with a sense that the same two parties had been in forever and just broke promises all the time. Hence Clegg capitalising on that (although again, a lot pulled back and stuck with what they knew - when it came to the crunch, people said it a lot during the campaign, but when it came down to it...) - and yeah, the Lib Dems' turnaround I think definitely contributes to it as well. When you go into an election thinking all politicians are the same, lying and cheating and stealing and saying anything to get into power, then the party that promises to change that does the same (and ironically far more than the original two parties ever did), it's only going to reinforce that message even more - doubly so for voters who changed to them/gave them their first vote on the basis of that.

 

The rich getting richer while everyone else stays the same is one of the more common complaints I hear, but still not all that often. It might be different in core Labour areas but I really don't think most floating voters genuinely think an Ed Miliband Labour government would just cosy up to the rich. The problem is that it's one area where polls say one thing about the policy hypothetically but the ridiculously lock-step reaction from business always means the reaction never reaches those polling heights. It's an area where I think the only way it could be done is as a shock offensive while already in government, and hand in hand with using it to cut taxes on small business or something to try and divide the opposition and pit them against each other, while warding off spittle-flecked 'THIS IS ANTI-ASPIRATION!!!!111!' monologues on Newsnight.

 

Err the Lib Dems weren't IN power, they were part of a coalition. Coalition governments by their very nature HAVE to compromise. That's a fact. The previous governments were the ones who DIDN'T have to compromise at all in any way, except where they were defeated in the Commons votes. They still did NOT do what they claimed they would do in their manifestos on so many issues. far more, and of far more importance, than the compromises the LibDems have had to make due to circumstances beyond their control.

 

Feel free to check past manifestos and election promises, then compare with actual achievements.

 

People aren't stupid. We, the public, recall what was promised and are perfectly able to compare it with what happened subsequently. That's why people are disenchanted with politicians. Soundbites, media-speak, distrust and mountains of debt, bankrupt banks, super-rich directors who are so useless they bankrupt their own companies and get away with it. The reason the Scottish Indie campaign is so close is no co-incidence and divorced from the current economic situation, it's a result of it. And the fact that the three parties should have taken it a lot more seriously a lot earlier....

 

 

We've been over this about a million bloody times. A party going back on its most famous policy by far when it's run one of the most sodding pious election campaigns ever on 'no broken promises' and its leader has signed a contract saying he would oppose any rise in tuition fees is the very essence of betrayal. I somehow doubt the reaction would have been anywhere the same if Clegg had held out for a red line on tuition fees in exchange for letting a few other lesser manifesto commitments go.

Err the Lib Dems weren't IN power, they were part of a coalition. Coalition governments by their very nature HAVE to compromise. That's a fact. The previous governments were the ones who DIDN'T have to compromise at all in any way, except where they were defeated in the Commons votes. They still did NOT do what they claimed they would do in their manifestos on so many issues. far more, and of far more importance, than the compromises the LibDems have had to make due to circumstances beyond their control.

 

Feel free to check past manifestos and election promises, then compare with actual achievements.

Precisely. Of course the "signed prose" on tuition fees was a mistake although it should be remembered that a lot of Lib Dem backbenchers stuck to that promise.

 

However, how about these for starters

 

Labour 1997 - "We will not introduce tuition fees". They introduced tuition fees.

 

Labour 2005 - "We will not increase tuition fees". They almost trebled tuition fees.

 

Tories 1979 - "We will not introduce large increases in prescription charges". They increased them by more than the rate of inflation EVERY YEAR they were in power from 1979 to 1997.

 

Tories 1979 - "We will not double VAT" - VAT increased from 8% to 15%. It eventually went up to 17.5% to pay for the Poll Tax.

 

Tories 1992 - "Vote Conservative on Thursday, the tax cuts will begin on Friday". They introduced the biggest tax increases implemented by any peace-time government in history.

 

Tories 1992 - "We will not introduce VAT on fuel". They introduced VAT on fuel.

 

Tories 2010 - "No top down reorganisation of the NHS". We all know what happened to that one.

 

All of those promises were broken - sometimes within months of the election. Some of them were even broken by a party that had just been re-elected so they couldn't even use the old "The other lot left a bigger mess than we thought" excuse.

 

We've been over this about a million bloody times. A party going back on its most famous policy by far when it's run one of the most sodding pious election campaigns ever on 'no broken promises' and its leader has signed a contract saying he would oppose any rise in tuition fees is the very essence of betrayal. I somehow doubt the reaction would have been anywhere the same if Clegg had held out for a red line on tuition fees in exchange for letting a few other lesser manifesto commitments go.

Can you give me an example of any junior coalition party anywhere in the world that has managed to stick to every dot and comma of its manifesto? If you can then it must have been a very short manifesto.

I don't think so entirely (and I think it's false to draw from the referendum that people pay little attention to businesses - just that they aren't any longer the be-all and end-all). I think they're losing relevance (hence why I think it's doable in the first place), but the 50p rate announcement in January getting absolutely savaged from all corners and Labour slumping in the polls consistently for a week or two after (with little else to draw towards that) makes me think they're still influential enough to freeze out hypothetical opposition policy (especially if it's in 'THIS WILL STALL THE RECOVERY' mode). I'd rather it was done from within government if only because the results shut down that kind of hyperbole pretty quickly.

 

I still maintain this had nothing to do with the policy itself, which polled well even after businessmen collectively spat their dummies out (and crucially, it polled well even when it was mentioned in the question that it was Labour's policy). I think it had to with the fact they didn't fight back against the criticism which made them look weak and lacking in authority.

 

Incidentally, that feeds into what I think could be the most damaging criticism of all for Miliband at the next election: that if he's too weak to even stand up for himself, will he really have the bottle to stand up for Britain's interests in the EU/in the world generally. Irrespective of how "credible" or Tory-lite Labour's next manifesto is, there WILL be a cascade of criticism from the fat cats and vested interests regardless, and Ed if he doesn't fight back against it will look like someone who's easy to bully and dominate.

Edited September 13, 201410 yr by Danny

The press coverage in the few days remaining before the referendum will give a taste of what is to come next year. It will last for weeks rather than days and it will be absolutely brutal.

The press coverage in the few days remaining before the referendum will give a taste of what is to come next year. It will last for weeks rather than days and it will be absolutely brutal.

 

But the SNP to their credit have done an excellent job of, even when they come under fire, persistently defending their policies anyway and explaining why they think it's a good idea inspite of the criticisms. And as a result, I don't think anyone denies that their campaign has been a roaring success (even if they lose by a narrow margin, as I expect, it will still be a much better result than anyone was expecting a year ago). What I fear Labour will do, based on the last few years, is whenever one of their policies starts getting criticised, they will just go quiet or try to change the subject or even do a U-turn on the policy itself, which projects weakness.

Edited September 13, 201410 yr by Danny

Labour should never have disbanded the rebuttal unit they set up before the 1997 election. That was very effective in countering Tory attacks within hours.

Does anyone know how the results will be declared? Are they at constituency (presumably Scottish Parliament constituency if so) or local authority level?

 

It has been suggested that the first results will not be until 2 am. That fits in with the earliest 2010 General Election declarations from Scotland. The count will be simpler but there will be more votes to count.

Precisely. Of course the "signed prose" on tuition fees was a mistake although it should be remembered that a lot of Lib Dem backbenchers stuck to that promise.

 

However, how about these for starters

 

Labour 1997 - "We will not introduce tuition fees". They introduced tuition fees.

 

Labour 2005 - "We will not increase tuition fees". They almost trebled tuition fees.

 

Tories 1979 - "We will not introduce large increases in prescription charges". They increased them by more than the rate of inflation EVERY YEAR they were in power from 1979 to 1997.

 

Tories 1979 - "We will not double VAT" - VAT increased from 8% to 15%. It eventually went up to 17.5% to pay for the Poll Tax.

 

Tories 1992 - "Vote Conservative on Thursday, the tax cuts will begin on Friday". They introduced the biggest tax increases implemented by any peace-time government in history.

 

Tories 1992 - "We will not introduce VAT on fuel". They introduced VAT on fuel.

 

Tories 2010 - "No top down reorganisation of the NHS". We all know what happened to that one.

 

All of those promises were broken - sometimes within months of the election. Some of them were even broken by a party that had just been re-elected so they couldn't even use the old "The other lot left a bigger mess than we thought" excuse.

 

 

Many thanks for these, and they weren't even the policies I was thinking about. As I've said before the one that made me livid was the much-needed 200,000 or whatever new homes by Gordon Brown pledge per year. I know WHY they didn't do it (to save the housing market collapsing and taking most banks down too) but they are also the same party that refused to listen to expert advice about reckless lending, reckless borrowing, and a blatantly obviously overheating housing market for many years before it all imploded. Greed overtook common sense throughout the land (and world), and especially in big business and politics. This is all now history, and I'm going to continue to say "I told you so" for as long as politicians choose to conveniently "forget" they were the ones that allowed it all to happen thanks to their own arrogance and self-belief.

 

To party supporters, the world didn't suddenly form in 2008. 2014 is a result of what went before. History teaches lessons, and politicians choosing to ignore history are the most dangerous. I might be repeating myself, but hey so are all the same old Student ill-will comments towards the Lib-Dems. The party who was alone, if I can go off at a tangent, in thinking that the Iraq invasion wasn't perhaps the wisest move. Consequences 2014....? BIG issues, not minor dithering over how much students pay - a system which discourages working class and encourages the wealthy to continue to dominate society by existing at all. At least when it's targeted around future earnings there is no starting life in student debt which has been a horrendous (Labour) policy.

From what I have heard it is being done at local authority level. We have 32 so there will be 32 sets of results of varying sizes.

 

Clackmannanshire is completely irrelevant as an area because it has 39 residents in it's 2 square miles so it should be the first to announce but won't actually effect shit. Highlands and Islands will probably be last to announce given that parts of the islands still exist in a time before the act of Union came into force. Despite the land area. They aren't overly relevant either because they have the population density of the moon.

 

Aberdeen City will vote No but Aberdeenshire probably will go Yes. Angus and Dundee are probable Yes councils and I expect Fife to be No. I would imagine Glasgow will go Yes and Edinburgh will go No.

 

We need a local authority predicta

From what I have heard it is being done at local authority level. We have 32 so there will be 32 sets of results of varying sizes.

 

Clackmannanshire is completely irrelevant as an area because it has 39 residents in it's 2 square miles so it should be the first to announce but won't actually effect shit. Highlands and Islands will probably be last to announce given that parts of the islands still exist in a time before the act of Union came into force. Despite the land area. They aren't overly relevant either because they have the population density of the moon.

 

Aberdeen City will vote No but Aberdeenshire probably will go Yes. Angus and Dundee are probable Yes councils and I expect Fife to be No. I would imagine Glasgow will go Yes and Edinburgh will go No.

 

We need a local authority predicta

The fun will start if it is close enough to require a recount. At the very least I would hope somebody will be flicking through each bundle for any obvious problems, e.g. a No ballot paper on top of a bundle of Yes votes which would lead to it being put in the wrong pile. That should limit the possibility of having to start again throughout the country :drama:

Can you give me an example of any junior coalition party anywhere in the world that has managed to stick to every dot and comma of its manifesto? If you can then it must have been a very short manifesto.

This post makes literally no sense compared to the post it quoted.

 

'We've been over this about a million bloody times. A party going back on its most famous policy by far when it's run one of the most sodding pious election campaigns ever on 'no broken promises' and its leader has signed a contract saying he would oppose any rise in tuition fees is the very essence of betrayal. I somehow doubt the reaction would have been anywhere the same if Clegg had held out for a red line on tuition fees in exchange for letting a few other lesser manifesto commitments go.'

 

That isn't a 'HOW DARE THEY NOT STICK TO EVERY DOT AND COMMA OF THEIR MANIFESTO'. The last sentence quite literally implies the opposite. When you run a campaign based on 'no broken promises', sign a contract implying your most famous policy as a red line, and go back on that, that is a betrayal over and above standard coalition negotiations. It is a betrayal over and above any of those examples you named later - neither Labour nor the Tories made one of their big selling points (particularly to new voters) being whiter than white and restoring faith in politics by keeping to every single promise, nor did they sign a contract guaranteeing that they would vote against any attempts to do the opposite of those policies. That isn't to let them off the hook for those broken promises at all, but you have to either be blinded by bias or utterly socially clueless to not see that what the Lib Dems did was another magnitude. It was the equivalent of the Good Samaritan stabbing the man in the back the second he'd helped him up.

This post makes literally no sense compared to the post it quoted.

 

'We've been over this about a million bloody times. A party going back on its most famous policy by far when it's run one of the most sodding pious election campaigns ever on 'no broken promises' and its leader has signed a contract saying he would oppose any rise in tuition fees is the very essence of betrayal. I somehow doubt the reaction would have been anywhere the same if Clegg had held out for a red line on tuition fees in exchange for letting a few other lesser manifesto commitments go.'

 

That isn't a 'HOW DARE THEY NOT STICK TO EVERY DOT AND COMMA OF THEIR MANIFESTO'. The last sentence quite literally implies the opposite. When you run a campaign based on 'no broken promises', sign a contract implying your most famous policy as a red line, and go back on that, that is a betrayal over and above standard coalition negotiations. It is a betrayal over and above any of those examples you named later - neither Labour nor the Tories made one of their big selling points (particularly to new voters) being whiter than white and restoring faith in politics by keeping to every single promise, nor did they sign a contract guaranteeing that they would vote against any attempts to do the opposite of those policies. That isn't to let them off the hook for those broken promises at all, but you have to either be blinded by bias or utterly socially clueless to not see that what the Lib Dems did was another magnitude. It was the equivalent of the Good Samaritan stabbing the man in the back the second he'd helped him up.

Do you really think they would have succeeded in making tuition fees a red line issue? They negotiated an agreement which allowed their MPs to abstain which is about as fair as they could reasonably have gone. They then negotiated a fairer repayment method than the old one which meant most ministers voted for the policy. As I have said before, we have ended up with a system which is not a million miles away from the graduate tax the NUS used to support.

 

Your later statement is untrue. The Tories fought the 1992 election on a promise to start cutting taxes immediately. That was a blatant lie and they knew it at the time. That is different from making a promise and then being forced by circumstances to break that promise. Similarly, when Cameron promised "No top down reorganisation of the NHS" he either didn't know what his Shadow Health Secretary planned to do (which makes him incompetent) or it was a blatant lie.

 

Labour can claim that they didn't intend to introduce tuition fees until the Dearing report (set up by the Tories) but they cannot make the same claim about the subsequent increase after 2005.

 

We can be reasonably confident that no party will be encouraging their candidates to sign any firm pledge on anything at the next election.

I'm saying there's a difference in magnitude between breaking a promise and running a campaign on restoring trust in politics and ending broken promises, before then doing just that. And yes, given they had the Tories over a barrel, I think they absolutely could have negotiated an opt out on their signature policy in exchange for, say, letting Lords' reform go for then.

 

If they wanted that system, they should've gone for it rather than signing the pledge. But you don't campaign on restoring trust and promising one thing before doing literally the opposite. It's not even the policy itself that's the issue there - it's the utter gall of raising yourself above the others and proclaiming utter piety only to behave just as badly as the main two parties have done.

 

And the Lib Dem piety still continues!