Sam's disappointments?

[David Johnson]

The answer to the quiz question on what Clegg and the Lib Dems did about their pre-election pledge to students to vote against rises in tuition fees, once they got into power was D. To abstain in a vote against rises in tuition fees.

The result of this is that Cleggie who spent a disproportionate amount of time at universities and schools in the election campaign pushing this pledge and even being photographed holding said pledge, is now roundly booed every time he sets foot near an educational establishment.

The National Union of Students are apparently looking at the Lib Dem recall of MPs process planned for this parliament closely to see if there is any opportunity to recall and sack MPs who make a pledge to their electorate days before the election, get into power, and then days after, throw the pledge out of the window.

I note that Menzies Campbell who has more integrity than Clegg and the current bunch of senior Lib Dems that negotiated the coalition agreement has stated that having signed the pledge himself he cannot in all conscience not vote against any bill which increases tuition fees.

Good to see students recognise when they have been shafted and protest. Some on this forum just put it down as yet another example of Lib Dem Con coaltion compromise.

However, given all the reasons Sam voted for the Lib Dems have been shelved, all the students who were impressed by the Cleggie line on tuition fees have been let down and all the Lib Dems who voted for the economic line, the foreign policy, the defence policy etc etc have been let down, you have to ask the question...

What kind of a compromise is this?

Cheers
D

[David Johnson]

Agreed.

The Vince Cable interview was really embarrassing. He looked so uncomfortable. As Alistair Campbell said - like a Burnley fan who finds himself in the middle of the Blackburn end.

Cheers
D

[David Johnson]

"We all know Labour backed out. "

To repeat yet again, this concept that you are clinging on to for dear life, that the Lib Dems were keen on a coalition with Labour but Labour backed out, thus forcing the Lib Dems into a coalition with the Tories is nonsensically one-sided.

And it ain't just me that thinks so.

http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics ... egg-tories

And again, I repeat the words of Vince Cable who told Sky News that the talks broke down because "the numbers didn't add up" which ties in with what I have stated previously i.e. that as the negotiations had progressed well with the Tories and the Lib Dems felt (unbelievably in my opinion) that they were getting what they wanted, the belief grew in the Lib Dems that the Tories were a better bet than a coalition with Labour who had suffered very heavy losses and would not provide an overall majority, anyway.

Clearly there were Labour MPs against a Lib Dem coalition just as there were Lib Dem MPs who were against a Labour coalition. There were individuals on both sides that believed that a coalition in which Labour had lost 100 seats and the Lib Dems had also done far worse than expected would lack legitimacy in keeping out a Tory party that had won nearly 100 seats.

That's it, for the last time on this particular aspect of the topic.

D

[Sam Slater]

That's correct. The numbers didn't add up. Blunkett and Harman are on record as saying things like 'we should accepts we didn't win the election' or words to that affect. There are many conflicting views depending on who you talk to regarding why we didn't get a centre-left coalition but when you look at the obvious conclusions all this 'the numbers didn't add up' is waffle.

Why?

Well, for a start the numbers didn't add up for the Conservatives, either. You yourself have said you think the Lib Dems should have let the Conservatives get on with a minority government so using the number of seats as an excuse for your party to back away is pretty funny. Why couldn't a Lab/Lib coalition run as a minority government? A Lib/Lab minority government would have had more seats than a purely Conservative minority government. You've also seemingly backed off from your earlier statement that one of the reasons Labour backed off was 'because they didn't want to be labelled the coalition of the losers'. Now which is it?

Again:

1. Labour knows we have difficult times ahead and this government will be unpopular (or there's a high chance it will be).

2. The Lib Dems know that a coalition with the Conservatives will upset a good portion of leftist voters who flit between Lib/Lab voting.

I don't think there's anything controversial in the above statements. Because of this it seems obvious that Labour will gain more from a Lib/Con coalition right now that the Lib Dems themselves. The Lib Dems could have had cabinet seats, arranged compromises in policy and other things without alienating many voters if they'd made a coalition with Labour. That's why I find it funny when ignoramuses say things like "This coalition was just a power-grab by the Lib Dems!" The could have got just as much power with Labour and avoided the upcoming political suicide at the next election. THAT's why it's obvious to me that it was Labour that backed off. Long-term there's nothing in this for the Lib Dems and that the only reason they're in this coalition is that they feel they can represent their voters better within a coalition rather than in opposition.

So simple; so obvious.

Now onto my final post...

[David Johnson]

"So simple; so obvious."

!happy!

[David Johnson]

Sam
I read your post again and there is so much in there that doesn't make sense I can't resist the need to correct it.

You say
"Well, for a start the numbers didn't add up for the Conservatives, either. You yourself have said you think the Lib Dems should have let the Conservatives get on with a minority government so using the number of seats as an excuse for your party to back away is pretty funny. Why couldn't a Lab/Lib coalition run as a minority government? A Lib/Lab minority government would have had more seats than a purely Conservative minority government."

You are separating one reason in isolation out from a number of reasons which ALL together resulted in a view BOTH in the Labour and Lib Dem parties that a coalition wouldnt work. To say merely that the Conservatives by themselves would have been a minority government so why couldnt the Lib Dems/Labour ignores the fact that the Conservatives won nearly 100 seats and Labour had their worst result for decades, losing nearly 100 seats. This effected the Labour party's legitimacy in hanging on in power in BOTH Labour and Lib Dem eyes.

You say
"You've also seemingly backed off from your earlier statement that one of the reasons Labour backed off was 'because they didn't want to be labelled the coalition of the losers'. Now which is it?"

"Backing off". Your favourite phrase! Do I have use every single argument in every single post on this subject to prevent you using the phrase "you have backed off"?? I believe that both Lib Dems and Labour supporters (some, not all, in both cases) believed that it was a coalition of the losers.

As to the "Now which is it". Obviously it is not an either or, but can be both reasons, the numbers didnt add up and they would be viewed as a coalition of the losers.

You say
"Lib Dems could have had cabinet seats, arranged compromises in policy and other things without alienating many voters if they'd made a coalition with Labour"

This is true. But it didnt happen for the reasons that BOTH Labour and Lib Dems (see Vince Cable reference) stated that the numbers didnt add up and Labour had limited legitimacy. See above.

Secondly I would like to point out that you appear to continue to lie about me being totally against compromise. This lie has occured on a number of occasions. If you had had the courtesy to read the messages I have posted you would find that I was not against in theory a coalition of Labour and Lib Dems. Nor am I against coalitions of parties with much common ground between them. Feel free to apologise and admit that you are wrong about that. Of course, I will not be holding my breath for such an apology.

You say
"That's why I find it funny when ignoramuses say things like "This coalition was just a power-grab by the Lib Dems!"

A coalition that I am definitely not in favour of is one in which the political party I voted for throws out nearly all their principles and policies for power. You have admitted every single one of the reasons you voted Lib Dem has been thrown out of the window. The students who believed the pledge about opposing rises in tuition fees have been shafted by the Lib Dems. The people who voted for the Lib Dems policies on the cuts, nuclear power, foreign policy, immigration, defence have been shafted. Those who voted for proportional representation have been shafted.

There has been no political party in living memory that has thrown out such a huge percentage of their policies once in power as the Lib Dems led by Nick Clegg. Why then do you not see that it is perfectly understandable for people to take the view that the Lib Dems desire for power for the first time since their inception, resulted in so many policies being thrown out and people taking the view that it was a "power grab".

Then you end with your mantra

"THAT's why it's obvious to me that it was Labour that backed off."

One of your problems, Sam is you do not have a detailed understanding of the party you so slavishly support on this forum.

All parties to a certain extent are a coalition. However in the Lib Dems, Clegg, Laws and Alexander have much more in common with the Tories than the Liberalism of Ashdown, Charles Kennedy and Shirley Williams who all opposed the Lib Dem Con coalition. Osborne tried to recruit Laws to the Tory party because he saw him essentially as a Conservative. You need to familarise yourself with the Orange Book: Reclaiming Liberalism which the likes of Clegg, Laws and Cable contributed to.

It contains phrases suggesting there should be an attack on "nanny state liberalism", called for the civil service to be "drastically pruned" and the NHS to be replaced by "a system of competing insurance schemes".

In short, what you need to consider is that most of the negotiating team for the Lib Dems such as its leader, Danny Alexander and Nigel Laws had much much more in common with the Tories than the Labour party.

Could this be a factor in the Lib Dem Con coalition rather than the Lib Dem Labour one?

And finally I will leave you with the thoughts of the Blessed Cleggie on the joys of the Lib Dem Con coalition and how good a fit it is.

"At first (talking about the Tories) I thought we had differing views, but then I understood we were just using different words. For instance, Liberalism = Big Society.

That says it all really

This is the last post on this aspect!!!!

Cheers
D

[Sam Slater]

[quote]You are separating one reason in isolation out from a number of reasons which ALL together resulted in a view BOTH in the Labour and Lib Dem parties that a coalition wouldnt work. To say merely that the Conservatives by themselves would have been a minority government so why couldnt the Lib Dems/Labour ignores the fact that the Conservatives won nearly 100 seats and Labour had their worst result for decades, losing nearly 100 seats. This effected the Labour party's legitimacy in hanging on in power in BOTH Labour and Lib Dem eyes.[/quote]

Legitimacy? It's either legitimate or it isn't. Legally a Lib/Lab coalition could have governed as a minority government.

[quote]"Backing off". Your favourite phrase! Do I have use every single argument in every single post on this subject to prevent you using the phrase "you have backed off"?? I believe that both Lib Dems and Labour supporters (some, not all, in both cases) believed that it was a coalition of the losers.

As to the "Now which is it". Obviously it is not an either or, but can be both reasons, the numbers didnt add up and they would be viewed as a coalition of the losers.[/quote]

"It's Nick Clegg's fault!" Your favourite phrase! Do I have use every single argument in every single post on this subject to prevent you using the phase "it's Nick's fault."?? I believe that Labour Mps and supporters (a majority, but not all) believed that being labelled a coalition of the losers was bad PR, and thus more damaging than sitting this term out. They put their party's image before governing a people who had by a majority voted centre-left.

Now, as I've pointed out, a Lib/Lab coalition was legitimate and lawful. This 'numbers didn't add up' excuse is just that, an excuse. The only logical reason, and the reason many Labour MPs have hinted at, is that they'd be tagged (as we both agree on) 'a coalition of losers'. Now, fear of that moniker may well have run through the Lib Dem ranks too, but I just think that such a tag would hurt Labour much more than the Lib Dems. In many people's eyes -and quite wrongly in my opinion- they're labelled a wasted vote anyway. I don't think the Lib Dems would have been that concerned about a 'losers' tag....not any more concerned than being labelled 'closet Tories' as they are now. That's why I think the Libs' decision to the coalition is of the best intentions and in now way some sort of power grab, or shitting on their voters. For Labour that tag would have hurt them more and a big reason why they......err.....(I'm trying not to say 'backed off')....well......couldn't stomach a coalition with the Lib Dems.

[quote]A coalition that I am definitely not in favour of is one in which the political party I voted for throws out nearly all their principles and policies for power. You have admitted every single one of the reasons you voted Lib Dem has been thrown out of the window. The students who believed the pledge about opposing rises in tuition fees have been shafted by the Lib Dems. The people who voted for the Lib Dems policies on the cuts, nuclear power, foreign policy, immigration, defence have been shafted. Those who voted for proportional representation have been shafted.[/quote]

That's just more Labour poppycock. It's poppycock because all those policies wouldn't have come into force if we had what you wanted: a minority Tory government. If there was a real, serious alternative that would have guaranteed some/most/any of these policies being implemented and the Lib Dems ignored the opportunity to go with the Tories then your 'shafted' terminology might hold more weight with me. The alternative was no Lib Dem policies at all and a further election where we all cross our fingers and hope the Tories don't win the next one outright. Brown hanging in to compete in a further election would have made him look even more like the unpopular twat who just won't leave the party (unfair in my eyes but that's what a lot of people thought of him as) and if he went would many have voted Labour when they'd have been in the middle of trying to find another leader themselves? Like I said, I minority Conservative government would have led to a majority Conservative government within 12 months (imho of course). No one's been 'shafted' unless you're a Labour voter who feels Labour put their party's image before governing the people who voted for them. And don't even give me that bollocks about people voting for PR being shafted. Again, Labour championed PR for years until they got into power. They had 13 years to get it through and even when they lost the election they baulked at it and only offered AV. The problem with you is that you cannot see that Labour don't want to give people a fairer voting system, they just want to keep the status quo of playing pass the parcel with the Tories when it comes to our government. Labour aren't all bad and have done some good things for our nation, but on this they're power-hungry cunts who want to keep smaller parties down. Sorry.

I just think you're either blind or naive about Labour and how they've handled it all.

It all comes down to two points and any Labour supporter is open to answer honestly:

1. Politically, is it better for Labour to sit out this term in government and let the Cons/Libs get on with it? (my answer is yes).

2. If you answered yes to the above, are Labour voters benefiting just as much as/more than Labour in letting the Cons/Libs get on with it? (my answer is no they're not).

I think sitting out this term is good for Labour and bad for Labour voters. Any Tory policies you don't like, I agree the Lib Dems have some responsibility now they're in coalition. But, Labour could have done more to prevent those same Tory policies. They could have been really open and serious, while conceding much more to the Libs which would have made a Lab/Lib coalition a no-brainer. Even if Nick Clegg was a closet Tory, Labour could have offered the Lib Dems such a deal that they couldn't refuse, denying Nick that 75% support he needed. You can pick as many phrases as you want, David, which hints at Tory sympathies which the odd Lib Dem MP may have, but all in all the Lib Dem party, and their voters are lefties. Labour could have played on that fact but didn't. They didn't because it was the wrong move, politically. Nick couldn't have partnered with the Tories without party support so all your sniping is just a waste of time. You can argue that Nick Clegg didn't get enough from the deal, and I'd agree wholeheartedly. But this 'shafting his voters' bollocks is just that: bollocks.

[David Johnson]

Wot no apology? I am surprised! Nice rant though! !happy!

http://www.mydavidcameron.com/about/MyNickClegg

[David Johnson]

I finally understand your arguments. How could I be so dumb for so long?

You would rather eat your face than vote Tory.

So you vote Lib Dem and they throw out more of their key policies to get in power, than any party in the history of British politics outside wartime.

But silly David, this is the point you missed, because just one Lib Dem policy as part of a Lib Dem Con coalition is better than none, even if that one Lib Dem policy is none of the ones you voted for Sam! Eureka, I get it now.

Hey, but on the other hand, dont the Tories get to have a big majority now the Lib Dems have joined them in coalition and agreed that they won't oppose these umpteen laws which are totally against Lib Dem policies that the Tories are going to introduce?

And if the Lib Dems had left the Conservatives in a minority government, the Lib Dems and Labour would have had much more control over what was passed.

Duh, I still don't understand Sam!!!! Maybe it's because I havent got your crystal ball about what happens in future elections? That must be it!

Thanks Sam for making it all so clear. Finally!

D

[Sam Slater]

[quote]I finally understand your arguments. How could I be so dumb for so long?[/quote]

I wouldn't call you dumb, David. You're just to fundamentalist in your politics to tolerate anything different or new.

[quote]You would rather eat your face than vote Tory.[/quote]

You like that quote, don't you? It is rather good.

[quote]So you vote Lib Dem and they throw out more of their key policies to get in power, than any party in the history of British politics outside wartime.[/quote]

My language would be 'set aside in order to better represent their voters'.

[quote]But silly David, this is the point you missed, because just one Lib Dem policy as part of a Lib Dem Con coalition is better than none, even if that one Lib Dem policy is none of the ones you voted for Sam! Eureka, I get it now.[/quote]

Lets not exaggerate, David. One Lib Dem policy? Ok, when it comes to the economy the Tories got nearly everything they wanted, but the Lib Dems' policy on raising the income tax threshold to ?10000 is planned for next April. When it comes to education the Lib Dems have got their pupil premium package through, although it's not clear how much of the ?2.5billion the Lib Dems wanted to spend they'll get. Then there's the much talked about AV, which we wouldn't have even got to the table if the Tories or Labour had won outright. Most of the policies surrounding parliamentary reform was just about the same right across all parties so I'll not mention those policies.
The Lib Dems have had to concede on immigration, sadly, but they have extracted an agreement from the Tories to stop detaining children at these immigration centres.

For a partner who only has 57 seats, while not elated, I'm not outraged or left feeling 'shafted' (as you like to put it......I wonder what Sigmund Freud would think of that?).

[qutoe]Hey, but on the other hand, dont the Tories get to have a big majority now the Lib Dems have joined them in coalition and agreed that they won't oppose these umpteen laws which are totally against Lib Dem policies that the Tories are going to introduce?[/quote]

They can abstain from any policy they want.

[quote]And if the Lib Dems had left the Conservatives in a minority government, the Lib Dems and Labour would have had much more control over what was passed.[/quote]

Till when? November? The New Year? Please.

[quote]Duh, I still don't understand Sam!!!![/quote]

Deary me. What ARE we going to do with you?

[quote]Maybe it's because I havent got your crystal ball about what happens in future elections? That must be it![/quote]

I gave my reasons why I think the Tories would win a second election after a short minority government. If you don't agree with my logic then argue against it. Carping on about this crystal ball all the time means you've obviously nothing in retort to what I feel would be likely to happen. I mean, if you think a Conservative minority government is a good idea then as a Labour man you must have an assumption that Labour would win a 2nd election? I can't see any other reason why a Labour supporter would want it. So you're looking into a crystal ball as much as I am! I've just pointed out the logic of my thinking (because when I'm debating I find it the polite thing to do) while you keep schtum because you just like being in the position of criticising others. The less you reveal about your own ideas the smaller a target you make yourself, eh, David? !happy!

I look forward to your "this is my last, last, last reply....honest!.....no I'm telling the truth this time, I swear!" reply. !laugh!