egafd.com

"but you've not really convinced me that because the Tories were in office 13 years ago they somehow will fit into governing the country much easier."

Okay, I will try to make it easier to understand. First a lesson in references. I did not say the Tories would fit into governing the country much easier. What I did say is that voting for the Lib Dems was a leap in the dark and having no experience of running the British government, I dont believe to be a positive for a prospective government. Hey, you havent been attending the Reggie Perrin school of debating have you?

Have a read of the thread if you think I am kidding you.

But again before you start misinterpreting me, I am not discounting that the Lib Dems could be successful in government, but its a huge leap of faith.

Heaven forbid, I set up a party called the Johnson party. I get enough candidates in order to get some TV time and put together a manifesto.

The manifesto and my appearance on TV goes down great! I promise so much and I had a new haircut! I am going to cut taxes such as income tax for the less well off. I am going to do what I can to protect the NHS. I'm going to save billions by scrapping Trident. I'm going to sort out those banks - cue hisses and boos. And I'm going to have "fairness" at the heart of my system. Everyone's life will be transformed. Fantastico!

I would hope that voters might start thinking "Hey this is all very well but how do we know this Johnson party is going to deliver? What sort of track record have these guys got in running the British government and converting ideas into practice? What do these guys really, really stand for once in government? Will it be completely different if they get into power? Do they know much about running the British government? Hey I read the press and it looks bloody tough that gig!

Now if we turn to reality. I know what the track record of Labour is. I can go to the last three election successes for Labour. Look at the manifesto and see what they actually did. Wizzo! For the Tories, Davey Cameron worked for Thatcher, worked for Lamont, has ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke in the Shadow Cabinet and hey, Osborne is coming across as such a dead weight I can see ole Ken do a soft shoe shuffle into no. 11.
Now I can remember what the Tories were like under Thatcher and Major. And I can hear that Cameron thinks Thatcher did a great job and hey, I know what Ken was like cos I was around at the time. And I can see that Cameron's Big Society is just another take on how to get around reducing the size of the centralised State. I know Cameron couldnt adhere to the old Thatcherite shtick of looking after numero uno, so he came up with another way of getting the same result. And I know what those Tory boys and girls did in terms of turning their manifestos into practice. Wizzorama!

So then I turn to the Lib Dems and shit, these guys last won an election in 1910? Can you believe that? What the fuck have these guys been doing for a 100 years, filling their fucking expense claims in and smearing the opposition every 5 years while they get hammered in the polls?

Thats why its a leap in the dark. Geddit now?

I've made my point, more than enough times for one thread, eh?

D

PS I wonder if there really is a book called "Running the British Government for Dummies? Could be mandatory reading for all prospective politicians. If there ain't, anybody got the phone number of the guy who wrote Yes, Minister?


Happy voting and over to you, Samuel for the FINAL WORD
D

David Johnson wrote:

[SNIP]
>
> Heaven forbid, I set up a party called the Johnson party. I
> get enough candidates in order to get some TV time and put
> together a manifesto.
>
[SNIP]
>
> So then I turn to the Lib Dems and shit, these guys last won an
> election in 1910? Can you believe that? What the fuck have
> these guys been doing for a 100 years, filling their fucking
> expense claims in and smearing the opposition every 5 years
> while they get hammered in the polls?
>
> Thats why its a leap in the dark. Geddit now?
>


Of course the difference is that, while neither the Johnson party and the Lib Dems have any recent record of governing a country, the leap of faith needed to vote Lib-Dem isn't that large for many people who know what living under a Lib-Dem local council is like. OK not quite the same thing, but at least there is a reference point to (recent) past election pledges and whether or not those pledges were put into effect, and if so, successfully or not.

[quote]Okay, I will try to make it easier to understand.[/quote]

Oooooh, bitchy!

[quote]First a lesson in references. I did not say the Tories would fit into governing the country much easier.[/quote]

No, you didn't but that's what your point really amounts to, isn't it? Why else would you want to keep harping on about the Lib Dems having 'no experience'? I don't think rephrasing what you actually said changes your basic meaning here.

[quote]eaven forbid, I set up a party called the Johnson party. I get enough candidates in order to get some TV time and put together a manifesto.

The manifesto and my appearance on TV goes down great! I promise so much and I had a new haircut! I am going to cut taxes such as income tax for the less well off. I am going to do what I can to protect the NHS. I'm going to save billions by scrapping Trident. I'm going to sort out those banks - cue hisses and boos. And I'm going to have "fairness" at the heart of my system. Everyone's life will be transformed. Fantastico![/quote]

I'm not voting for you when you're being so facetious, Davey.

[quote]Now if we turn to reality. I know what the track record of Labour is. I can go to the last three election successes for Labour. Look at the manifesto and see what they actually did. Wizzo![/quote]

But again, this would mean that the 'sensible' folk should have kept with the Tories in '97. It doesn't wash. In your previous post you actually showed me that Labour had learnt more from the previous Tory governments than the last Labour one. And the Labour party of '97 was a different animal compared to the government of the mid '70s (probably due to, as you kindly showed me, learning from the Tory governments before them).

[quote]For the Tories, Davey Cameron worked for Thatcher, worked for Lamont, has ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Ken Clarke in the Shadow Cabinet and hey, Osborne is coming across as such a dead weight I can see ole Ken do a soft shoe shuffle into no. 11.
Now I can remember what the Tories were like under Thatcher and Major.[/quote]

Oh, riiiiight.... So because Cammy worked under Thatcher 2 decades ago it's not such of a 'leap of faith' voting for him? You've pulled out the Kenneth Clarke card so I'm pulling out Vince Cable. He has previous experience in being advisor to John Smith, the then Industry Secretary for Labour in the '70s. Personally I don't think that experience is that much of an advantage but you seem to, so there you go.

[quote]And I can see that Cameron's Big Society is just another take on how to get around reducing the size of the centralised State. I know Cameron couldnt adhere to the old Thatcherite shtick of looking after numero uno, so he came up with another way of getting the same result.[/quote]

So, like Labour in '97 learning from the previous Tory governments Cameron has learnt a little from current Labour. That's the way I see it, David. Blair moved Labour closer to the Tories and the Tories are moving closer to New Labour......at least that's how it looks. Brilliant!

Slightly off topic but I'll mention it while you've reminded me: The Tories are supposed to be about small government giving power to the people (big society), right? Well now they're saying a move to proportional representation leads to weak government and instability. So they want strong government when it suits them, it seems.

[quote]So then I turn to the Lib Dems and shit, these guys last won an election in 1910? Can you believe that? What the fuck have these guys been doing for a 100 years, filling their fucking expense claims in and smearing the opposition every 5 years while they get hammered in the polls?[/quote]

They could have been. Then again they could have been the victim of an unfair voting system and a press that are only interested in the two 'big' parties. TV debating has changed that and you don't seem to like it.

[quote]Thats why its a leap in the dark. Geddit now?[/quote]

Oh, I always got it, Dave, I just thought it wasn't a strong argument. You've still not convinced me on this 'experience' thing and talking about how Cameron used to make the tea for Thatcher 20 years ago etc etc etc.... But it's ok, we're still mates aren't we?

[quote]I've made my point, more than enough times for one thread, eh?[/quote]

Not half.

[quote]PS I wonder if there really is a book called "Running the British Government for Dummies? Could be mandatory reading for all prospective politicians.[/quote]

I've not heard of such a book, but good luck with it. Not keen on 'The Johnson Party' as a name though. For some reason I have 'The John-Thomas Party' in my head.

Yeah, you are obviously right about the local council level.

Personally though I would put the level of difference between running the local council and running the country's foreign policy, economy etc etc to be much more than "OK not quite the same thing" that you refer to. I see it as being more like a quantum leap in complexity, risk etc.

Cheers
D

David Johnson wrote:

> Yeah, you are obviously right about the local council level.
>
> Personally though I would put the level of difference between
> running the local council and running the country's foreign
> policy, economy etc etc to be much more than "OK not quite the
> same thing" that you refer to. I see it as being more like a
> quantum leap in complexity, risk etc.
>
> Cheers
> D




Has it never crossed your mind that most people voting Lib Dem know they won't form a majority government under our present system anyway (so hardly a leap in the dark in that case!), but do so in an attempt to break the two party system.

I genuinely hope we get a hung parliament and that the trade off for Clegg doing a deal with whoever is electoral reform which will permanently end the two party system... sorry if that seems to frighten you so much David, but it's the European countries with two party systems that are the most fucked up at the moment; high time we had a complete change in the structure of our politics.

"Has it never crossed your mind that most people voting Lib Dem know they won't form a majority government under our present system anyway (so hardly a leap in the dark in that case!), but do so in an attempt to break the two party system."

Of course it has crossed my mind, which is why I have stated in response to number 6 that I think it highly unlikely that the Lib Dems will get a majority due to the electoral system.

"I genuinely hope we get a hung parliament and that the trade off for Clegg doing a deal with whoever is electoral reform which will permanently end the two party system... sorry if that seems to frighten you so much David,"

Please point out to me where I have stated that I am frightened or even opposed to the end of the two party system? I seem to spend most of my time on this forum replying to inaccurate "interpretations" of what I have said as if people want to have a debate about some points irrespective of whether I have made said points or not.

In this thread I have made a very few, very simple points:
1. If you vote for a party that hasn't won a British government election since 1910 it is potentially, but not inevitably, a big risk. See point 2.
2. Having no experience whatsoever of running the British government or indeed any aspect of the British government in Westminster as a Lib Dem is not a positive.
3. Running the British government is a complex, risk filled business.
4. Clegg has got in a complete tangle about what might happen in the event of a hung parliament which he is only now managing to try and extricate himself from.
5. The implication of 1, 2 and 3 is that voters should look extra close at the Lib Dems policies etc etc .

Now personally, I would have thought that these points were pretty self-evident. But no, I even have Sam dragging out Vince Cable as an advisor to Labour party, John Smith when he was minister as an example of Lib Dem expertise. Err, Ken Clarke, Liam Fox, Andrew Lansley, David Willetts, William Hague etc etc.

I realise that you might "interpret" them as me being "frightened of the end of the two party system" I am not.

But maybe I am indeed talking total bollocks and that there are umpteen complex, risky tasks out there in society for which having no experience of those tasks is a positive thing or at the very least, not a potential problem.

Maybe someone can tell me which ones they are?

Cheers
D

David Johnson wrote:

[SNIP]
>
> Please point out to me where I have stated that I am frightened
> or even opposed to the end of the two party system?
[SNIP]

Without actually saying those words, it's an impression I have received from you over the space of many posts in many threads. Apologies if I am wrong. Maybe you could post something along the lines of "I embrace the surge in the Lib Dem vote and the potential end of the two party system as we know it" to avoid me thinking that this scenario frightens you.

Hiya Bob,

I dont necessarily embrace the surge in the Lib Dem vote because I am not particularly keen on joining the euro, supporting Turkey's entry into the EU and think that much of that surge is down to the fact that people are arsed off with Labour, they are arsed off with the Conservatives so they fancy voting for this other bloke, many had never previously heard of, but came across as dead natural on the tele.

I don't see how you can otherwise explain an 11% increase in the polls for the Lib Dems within 2 days or so of the television debate in which Clegg largely twittered on about fairness and very little about Lib Dem policies.

And I think it unfortunate that a lot of people have not twigged yet that because the election system is weighted against third parties, coalition looms and a vote for Clegg may result in a coalition with the Conservatives to prop up David Cameron or alternatively a coalition with Labour to prop Brown up.

At least, you know where you are with the SNP and Plaid Cymru. They have stated that they will not form a coalition with Labour or Conservatives. You have no such clarity with Cleggie.

Hope this clarifies my views.


However, I am definitely in favour of changes in the electoral system so that the number of seats won in the Commons much more closely reflects the number of votes cast.

Trust that is clear.

Cheers
David