Self-less politicans...

[Sam Slater]

[quote]The reason I didn't reply to your questions is because they are clearly either closed questions or badly phrased.[/quote]

Not that you've ever asked me closed questions, David. Still, you could always add a caveat to your answers.

[quote]I could just as easily say Do you want your party to serve the interests of the people, that is the people who voted for your manifesto and principles or selfish self interest in power.[/quote]

Argh! Horridly phrased, David. Sorry. But since you asked, my answer would be to pick the former, obviously. The caveat to that, though, is that in this instance I think the latter option isn't a real option at all. I don't see how a left-wing party, getting into a coalition with a right-wing party, at a time when cuts are certain, is doing it for selfish reasons. As many have admitted (I think even you've said this), this government will probably turn out to be very unpopular. Like many Labour MPs and voters have said: this might be the best election to lose. That attitude points more to self-preservation and selfishness than standing up and doing what you can.

[quote]This presupposes that there are only the two options. There are not. First it would be a minority Tory government (without the crystal ball, please). Secondly the option you do not consider was the option preferred by SHirley WIlliams and Paddy Ashdown i.e. instead of a coalition you have a "confirm and supply" agreement.[/quote]

It might have implied there were only two options but it doesn't presuppose there were only those. I never started my question with, 'The only two options are....'. Sorry to be pedantic. Regarding the confidence and supply agreement (I think that's what you mean): Yes, it's an option, but I don't see how it's an option that best serves your voters. I see no advantages to it other than it helps keep you out of the firing line.

You speak a lot about Clegg and the Lib Dems doing the wrong thing, and scorn my defence of them. It's easy to sit back, not giving too much away on your own opinions and just spend time criticising the opinions of others.

So, come on, tell me what you would have done, or think should have been done, in the real interests of the people. Other countries have coalitions all the time and get on just fine...most of them get on better in coalitions that what we do with a single, strong majority government. Are we too stupid as a nation to comprehend people of different parties working together? Isn't politics about diplomacy as well as policy?

[David Johnson]

The election result has just been corrected.

The BNP have won 306 seats and Labour and the Liberal Democrats have exactly the same number of seats as they were originally awarded. The Conservatives are nowhere, wiped out.

What would you do, Sam or think should be done in the above situation in the real interests of the people?

Other countries have coalitions all the time and get on just fine...most of them get on better in coalitions that what we do with a single, strong majority government. Are we too stupid as a nation to comprehend people of different parties working together? Isn't politics about diplomacy as well as policy? After all there are examples of extreme right wing parties entering coalitions in Europe, why can't it work fine here? It's the new age of consensus politics?

Implicit in the above is my answer to the what would you do etc. It's where you draw the line. I draw it in a completely different place to you.

I'm off out for a few pints

Goodnite all
D

[Sam Slater]

Why?

[Ned]

He's a moron. "Don't do this, this would be wrong" (it works) "What a good idea, I'm totally for it!" That's Cable in a nutshell.

With a bit of "Oh that's a really good idea, a top class policy" (it goes wrong) "Shit idea. Complete crap, no wonder we're up shit creek"

[Deuce Bigolo]

Ted Mack (Australia - New South Wales)



(Ted) Edward Carrington Mack (born 20 December 1933) is an Australian politician. He is the only person ever to have been elected and re-elected as an independent to local, state and federal government in Australia, and is often referred to as the "father of the independents".

Political career

Mack began to take an interest in politics in 1970 after the North Sydney Council approved construction of a 17-storey office block against his back fence. He subsequently ran for election to the council in 1974 and was successful, serving until 1988. He was elected Mayor of North Sydney in 1980, holding the position until his retirement from council in 1988.[1] During his term as mayor, Mack sold the mayoral Mercedes-Benz car, buying buses instead and instituting reforms to improve accountability.

In 1981, Mack decided to shift into state politics, and ran as an independent for the recently created New South Wales Legislative Assembly seat of North Shore.[1] He was successful in what would normally have been a safe Liberal(conservative)seat, and served as a state MP until 1988, when he retired two days before he was due to qualify for his parliamentary pension entitlements, as a statement against the excesses of public political office.
[edit] Federal politics

After two years of being out of politics, Mack achieved even broader fame by winning the federal seat of North Sydney in 1990, defeating incumbent Liberal(conservative)MP John Spender.[2] During his time in federal politics, Mack opposed unilateral tariff removal, privatisation, Australian involvement in the Gulf War[3] and the appointment of an Indonesian general as ambassador to Australia. Mack retired at the 1996 election for the same reasons he had quit state politics eight years previously.

Mack was elected as an independent Republican delegate to the 1998 Constitutional Convention.[2] He opposed the model favoured by the Australian Republican Movement. Along with Clem Jones, he is a director of Real Republic, and is known to be a proponent of Citizen Initiated Referenda.

Despite living nearby, for a time he refused to travel across the Sydney Harbour Bridge or through the Sydney Harbour Tunnel in protest at the secret contract and awarding of all tolls to Kumagai Transfield for 30 years.[

[David Johnson]

"You speak a lot about Clegg and the Lib Dems doing the wrong thing, and scorn my defence of them."

You have often given the impression, Sam, that the coalition was the only sensible option, an act of courage in the national interest etc etc.

Unfortunately, senior Lib Dem politicians such as Shirley Williams, Paddy Ashdown, Menzies Campbell, David Steele and Charles Kennedy do not seem to have shared your view, given that all of them came out against the coalition either before or after the coalition being formed.

I note also some Lib Dem MPs are being honest about the strength of opposition to the coalition. For example, Lorely Burt, the Lib Dem MP for Solihull has received over 800 emails since the coalition deal was struck. Well over two thirds of them have been negative, particularly among Lib Dem activists claiming they have been betrayed by the party.

You soldier on alone on this forum in defence of the Lib Dem Con coalition whilst senior Lib Dem politicians, who have forgotten more about Lib Dem politics and the Westminister system than either of us will ever know, point out its deficiencies.

By the way, do you accept that all the views you trot out in favour of a Lib Dem Con coalition would apply if the BNP had got 306 seats instead of the Conservatives?

Cheers
D

[max_tranmere]

Sam, interesting points there. I agree that most politicans care about the public but their career advancement and power seems to be the no.1 thing. You never hear a politican saying 'we dont have the answers to these problems, the current Government has created such a mess and it looks like they could be out and we could be in at the next Election. However as it will be almost impossible to clean this mess up then I would advise people not to vote for us as we wont do any better a job'. Its 'vote for me, vote for me' - regardless of whether they themselves think they will be effectual or not - this confirms that their desire for power is greater than any other consideration they may have.

There is certainly more money to be earned elsewhere but when you consider that many politicians have public sector careers running in tandem with their political careers then they are doing both and earning a bundle. William Hague earns over ?1m a year from private sector work and also has his public role aswell which he will earn from (although the ?1m a year he was earning may have to have been stopped now that he is a Minister but he certainly was earning that when in opposition.) And there is of course the millions they will all earn from trading off the contacts they made whilst in Government, when they eventually leave office. Ask yourself this: have you ever heard of a former senior politican who was in Government in the last 30 or 40 years to die with less than ?1m in the bank? All of Thatcher's and Major's front-bench, and including Thatcher and Major themselves, are all multi-millionaires now.

[Sam Slater]

[quote]You have often given the impression, Sam, that the coalition was the only sensible option, an act of courage in the national interest etc etc.

Unfortunately, senior Lib Dem politicians such as Shirley Williams, Paddy Ashdown, Menzies Campbell, David Steele and Charles Kennedy do not seem to have shared your view, given that all of them came out against the coalition either before or after the coalition being formed.[/quote]

And I'm sure you can find many Labour MPs who'd have backed PR.

[quote]I note also some Lib Dem MPs are being honest about the strength of opposition to the coalition. For example, Lorely Burt, the Lib Dem MP for Solihull has received over 800 emails since the coalition deal was struck. Well over two thirds of them have been negative, particularly among Lib Dem activists claiming they have been betrayed by the party.[/quote]

Of course, you're more likely to send a letter to your MP to complain. That's why we have adages like 'no news is good news'.

[quote]You soldier on alone on this forum in defence of the Lib Dem Con coalition whilst senior Lib Dem politicians, who have forgotten more about Lib Dem politics and the Westminister system than either of us will ever know, point out its deficiencies.[/quote]

And there are plenty more current Lib Dem MPs that back the deal. Many more. Maybe some of those MPs have labouritous. It's a disease where you put the interest of your party before the wishes of the people.

[quote]By the way, do you accept that all the views you trot out in favour of a Lib Dem Con coalition would apply if the BNP had got 306 seats instead of the Conservatives?[/quote]

No, I wouldn't. The BNP are an extreme right-wing party; they're fascists. I'm sure if the Tories had achieved a majority, while not liking it, you'd have accepted it because it was a democratic process. I'm assuming this because you have already lived through numerous Conservative governments. Given your past, would you just as easily accept a BNP majority if they ever got one?

[Sam Slater]

[quote]Sam, interesting points there. I agree that most politicans care about the public but their career advancement and power seems to be the no.1 thing.[/quote]

I don't disagree. I do, however, see how a politician may see career advancement and power as a means to better implement his/her ideology, and thus serve the people better. For instance, there were enough Labour MPs in 1995/6 that had an idea that we should have a minimum wage. That policy couldn't have become a reality if they hadn't have chased power. We shouldn't really judge politicians based on a craving for more influence, or power. We should judge them on how they go about achieving that power, their general character and thier policies.

[quote]Its 'vote for me, vote for me' - regardless of whether they themselves think they will be effectual or not - this confirms that their desire for power is greater than any other consideration they may have.[/quote]

You do not know what they are thinking and so that is just an assumption. Your opinion is your right, just realise you may be wrong.

[quote]Ask yourself this: have you ever heard of a former senior politican who was in Government in the last 30 or 40 years to die with less than ?1m in the bank? All of Thatcher's and Major's front-bench, and including Thatcher and Major themselves, are all multi-millionaires now.[/quote]

But not all MPs have Etonian connections or become front-bench MPs. The majority of MPs never get near the front bench and come and go.

[David Johnson]

"My Quote:

By the way, do you accept that all the views you trot out in favour of a Lib Dem Con coalition would apply if the BNP had got 306 seats instead of the Conservatives?

Sam's reply
No, I wouldn't. The BNP are an extreme right-wing party; they're fascists. I'm sure if the Tories had achieved a majority, while not liking it, you'd have accepted it because it was a democratic process.

I am not sure if you understand my point. Let me recap. You hate and despise the Tories and would rather eat your face than vote for the Tories. Your arguments in favour of the Lib Dem Con coalition are:

1. There was no other sensible alternative e.g. minority governmemnt, confidence and supply.
2. If the Lib Dems had not gone into a coalition, the Conservatives would have held an election in six months time and "scraped an overall majority".
3. This overall majority would have allowed them to bring in all their measures.
4. It is better for a centre left party like the Lib Dems to get involved in a coalition with the Conservatives so that they can water down their policies and "babysit" the Conservatives.

ALL of these arguments are CLEARLY just as relevant for arguing in favour of a coalition with the BNP if they get 306 seats as they are with any other party including the Cons.

You don't think so because you dislike the BNP even more than your "professed" hatred for the Tories which given the nature of the coalition with the great majority of Tory policies unchanged, I must say I am beginning to doubt.

I wondered if you had any political scruples whatsoever. You appear to have some.

So this exchange of views has had some purpose, if not much.

D