Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

3 years to before the death of the lib dems


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 20-04-2012, 09:26
Orri
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Scotlandshire
Posts: 7,901
That kind of rainbow coalition would not have worked, and yet some people still cannot add up well.
So we are led to believe. But that kind of coalition is exactly what PR would lead to. You remember PR the minor policy that would allow the Lib-Dems a larger chance at government. Now if the intent of the LDs is simply to bend over and take it from the largest party, what is the point in voting for them? And, yes, I do realise that Labour and LDs weren't in a position to provide a majority by themselves.
Orri is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 20-04-2012, 09:32
The Mc
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Selby, North Yorkshire
Posts: 3,562
Civil matter -- none of our business.
A bit like the Tories arming rebels and bombing Libya then......
The Mc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2012, 10:35
What name??
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 17,376
Yes they are part of the government but both parties have had to compromise and do things they wouldn't have done if in government on their own.
There is a difference between compromise and abandoning all principles.

Compromise on the economy - of course, compromise on the cuts and taxation - of course, cooperating in crippling the health service and limiting access to education for those from poorer homes and in return trying to put in place voting system that favours them... that is an entirely different thing and it stinks.
What name?? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2012, 10:39
What name??
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 17,376
A bit like the Tories arming rebels and bombing Libya then......
No. The Tories and the LibDems. They are a coalition.
What name?? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2012, 11:13
Tassium
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: It's Grim
Posts: 16,630
There is a difference between compromise and abandoning all principles.

Compromise on the economy - of course, compromise on the cuts and taxation - of course, cooperating in crippling the health service and limiting access to education for those from poorer homes and in return trying to put in place voting system that favours them... that is an entirely different thing and it stinks.
There can never be a compromise on ideology.

This is why coalition/PR can never really work in the way some people claim they can work, to represent a wider spectrum of people.


Coalition/PR can exist of course but either one party dominates nearly completely or there is a hopeless mess of conflicting policy that gets the country nowhere.


Coalition was never going to be a 'rose garden'. A better place to symbolise the future would have been a massage parlour...
Tassium is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2012, 11:59
MidnightFalcon
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Here--------->
Posts: 9,899
There can never be a compromise on ideology.
A good reason why hidebound ideologues should never be allowed within a million miles of power...
MidnightFalcon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2012, 12:45
jjne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,285
No. The Tories and the LibDems. They are a coalition.
Whatever. Still wasn't anything to do with us.
jjne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2012, 12:51
jjne
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 5,285
No way will the Libs fare the same way as Labour in 2005, they will get hammered like the Tories did in 97 but with only 57 MP's they will probably get completely wiped out!
What people seem to forget is that the LibDems had far more votes than 57 seats suggest.

It is entirely feasible that their vote could decline by 75%, and still result in more than half of the seats being retained.

No doubt the Tories will twist and bitch about this being 'undemocratic' and 'biased' if it comes to pass.
jjne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2012, 16:29
What name??
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 17,376
Whatever. Still wasn't anything to do with us.
True. But here isn't a single major UK party that supports that view so in foreign policy there is very little debate or difference regardless of who is in power.
What name?? is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-04-2012, 22:19
pixel_pixel
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 4,096
If the LibDems were to be wiped out, it would be a profoundly depressing day for this 'democracy'. There is a thin veneer of respectability currently -- the system just about limps along with a third 'choice' in place.

Get rid of that, and the system is exposed for the utter sham that it is.

In a sense, it could be a bloody good thing. Scotland leaves, the rest of the country left with a fundamentally broken political system, finally something might be bloody well done about it.
Well we all know what happened in the referendum!
pixel_pixel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2012, 19:16
whodoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Basildon, Essex, UK
Posts: 50
Much as it pains me to write this, (as a die hard old leftie). I think the Lib-Dems will survive, at least the Liberals will.

Certainly they will be much reduced, and for the left always tainted with Toryism but they will survive.

The anger felt by the left, the accusations of treachery are very real. For years the Lib-dems portrayed themselves as more left wing than New Labour, they appeared to us to be at first a safe protest vote and then a genuine alternative. However in hindsight we were looking to the SDP wing of the party only.

The Liberals have always been closer to the Tories and the Orange Book should have told us they were in the ascendant, if we on the left had cared to look. Given the shared backgrounds of Cameron and Clegg and the "issues" around Brown, they were only going to go one way.

What we are actually seeing is the normalisation of the Liberals. The irony of the situation is that the SDP betrayed Old Labour and by splitting the left vote helped to keep Labour out of power for a generation and enabled Thatcher to triumph. They have now damaged the Liberals and allowed the Tories back.

The left were seduced by the SDP wing, that's our fault, but as we drift back to labour, the Lib Dems are losing these soft votes. Without the labour/SDP votes what is left is a smaller old style Liberal party, which as I say will survive.

The test is with the right. if the SDP wing continues to agitate and frankly frustrate the Torys, the more right wing liberal voters may well step over to the Tories fully. If the remains of SDP wing pulls the Lib Dems out of the coalition then this soft right vote may well desert the party further,

In which case caught between angered Tories with the right wing "liberals" and the traditional left vote the Lib Dems will lose seats but the party that remains will be an Orange book Liberal party, although disliked by the Tories as much as Labour hates the SDP they will have a place at the table.

Once again the SDP has split the left the vote and helped the Tories, but this time they have damaged the Liberal Democrats at least as much as they ever did Labour.

My prediction is that the coalition will survive the five years. Come the election Liberals will lose a few seats to Labour, a few to Tories, I think the Tories will just scrape a majority, (God help us) with labour winning back seats from the Tories mainly where UKIP splits their vote.

So as SDP still hurts us UKIP will hurt the Tories, but in the long run we will see a resurgent Tory labour split, with the Liberals reverting to type but on the edges without the SDP influence.

Perhaps...as they say ...long time in politics.
whodoo is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 24-04-2012, 19:30
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,710
Even around 1916 though the Libs went into coalition with the Tories I think! If that is true, then this needs to be pointed out much more.
Correction - the Lloyd George Liberals did - and that was because there was a war on that was being lost.

The Liberals backed Labour in forming a government in 1924 and 1929 - and propped up the Labour govt in the 1970s. Indeed if it hadn't been for the Liberals giving them a free run at the start of the 20th century in the 1900 and 1906 elections Labour would never have got MPs in the first place.

And of course it was Liberal govts that introduced the old age pension, health insurance, sick pay, inheritance tax on the wealthy, free education, free school meals, penal reforms. the probation service and most importantly ended the power of the hereditary House of Lords to overrule legislation/tax reforms - and a Liberal (Keynes and Beveridge) who invented Labour's economic policies and thought up the welfare state.

Labour provided the brawn - the Liberals provided the brains!

So to state somehow the Liberals have always been some Tory prop is to show a total ignorance of British history!
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 00:09
whodoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Basildon, Essex, UK
Posts: 50
Correction - the Lloyd George Liberals did - and that was because there was a war on that was being lost.

The Liberals backed Labour in forming a government in 1924 and 1929 - and propped up the Labour govt in the 1970s. Indeed if it hadn't been for the Liberals giving them a free run at the start of the 20th century in the 1900 and 1906 elections Labour would never have got MPs in the first place.

And of course it was Liberal govts that introduced the old age pension, health insurance, sick pay, inheritance tax on the wealthy, free education, free school meals, penal reforms. the probation service and most importantly ended the power of the hereditary House of Lords to overrule legislation/tax reforms - and a Liberal (Keynes and Beveridge) who invented Labour's economic policies and thought up the welfare state.

Labour provided the brawn - the Liberals provided the brains!

So to state somehow the Liberals have always been some Tory prop is to show a total ignorance of British history!
I accept that the Liberals did much to be thankful for, we would not have an NHS certainly, but that said much of what they did was limited. As I understand it the health insurance was limited to working men, not dependants (?). The party was as they are now suspicous of state involvement. They share that with the Tories. I don't mean to suggest the Liberals are Tory wannabes or even Tory "lite" but they do have and have always had more in common with centrist "one nation" conservatism than they have recently claimed.

It is clear that the Liberals are not now and have never been Tory props, but nor have they ever been secret socialists, much as we on the left tried to believe they were, They do have much in common with conservatism, they make easier bedfellows.

The merger with the SDP did pull the Liberals more towards modern Labour than the more traditional Liberal party would have done. The Liberal wing would always have found much in common with moderate conservatives. Many differences certainly but enough in common to work with the Tories in a way Labour can't.

I maintain we on the left were fooling ourselves when we assumed the Lib Dems were closer to us than the Tories.
whodoo is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 01:21
MARTYM8
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 29,710
I accept that the Liberals did much to be thankful for, we would not have an NHS certainly, but that said much of what they did was limited. As I understand it the health insurance was limited to working men, not dependants (?). The party was as they are now suspicous of state involvement. They share that with the Tories. I don't mean to suggest the Liberals are Tory wannabes or even Tory "lite" but they do have and have always had more in common with centrist "one nation" conservatism than they have recently claimed.

It is clear that the Liberals are not now and have never been Tory props, but nor have they ever been secret socialists, much as we on the left tried to believe they were, They do have much in common with conservatism, they make easier bedfellows.

The merger with the SDP did pull the Liberals more towards modern Labour than the more traditional Liberal party would have done. The Liberal wing would always have found much in common with moderate conservatives. Many differences certainly but enough in common to work with the Tories in a way Labour can't.

I maintain we on the left were fooling ourselves when we assumed the Lib Dems were closer to us than the Tories.
Well they did amazing things at a time when the concept of such things as a state pension and free school meals was radical.

Labour could have introduced an NHS in 1924 or 1929 - but it took a world war and turmoil to make the environment in which that could happen. And despite all those years in office they have done little to make the Lords more democratic - a process which the Liberals started.

So I for one to not dismiss what the Liberal govt of 1906 to 1915 did - it was the most radical govt we ever had given the climate in which it operated.

As for the current day - well Labour would have implemented 80%+ of the Coalitions cuts and actually made larger cuts to the NHS as it wasn't protected.

And Blair and Brown's era in office in terms of areas like housing and the financial sector was shameful - let alone their very illiberal policies on many issues and their tendency to back Bush in every illegal war he fancied. So lets not claim Labour govts are perfect or progressive - cos the last one wasn't. And didn't Blair also introduce student tuition fees in 2003 - despite promising in his 2001 manifesto not to do so. So they were prone to hypocrisy too.

Asquith/Lloyd George were radical PMs which made progressive steps forward for ordinary people as was the Labour post war government led by Atlee. Blair and Brown were pale imitations!
MARTYM8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 12:13
whodoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Basildon, Essex, UK
Posts: 50
Well they did amazing things at a time when the concept of such things as a state pension and free school meals was radical.

Labour could have introduced an NHS in 1924 or 1929 - but it took a world war and turmoil to make the environment in which that could happen. And despite all those years in office they have done little to make the Lords more democratic - a process which the Liberals started.

So I for one to not dismiss what the Liberal govt of 1906 to 1915 did - it was the most radical govt we ever had given the climate in which it operated.

As for the current day - well Labour would have implemented 80%+ of the Coalitions cuts and actually made larger cuts to the NHS as it wasn't protected.

And Blair and Brown's era in office in terms of areas like housing and the financial sector was shameful - let alone their very illiberal policies on many issues and their tendency to back Bush in every illegal war he fancied. So lets not claim Labour govts are perfect or progressive - cos the last one wasn't. And didn't Blair also introduce student tuition fees in 2003 - despite promising in his 2001 manifesto not to do so. So they were prone to hypocrisy too.

Asquith/Lloyd George were radical PMs which made progressive steps forward for ordinary people as was the Labour post war government led by Atlee. Blair and Brown were pale imitations!
I absolutely agree the last Labour government, was certainly not progressive, their erosion of civil liberties, the use of PPI and all of the above. In fact I suspect we agree more than we realise. I am not a fan of the previous Labour administrations and I accept my dislike of the conservatives can get in the way, but what I was trying to say, however verbosely was that the Liberal party, (as radical and progressive as it was) is not the party the merger with the SDP made it appear. We on the left fooled ourselves that it was. As we leave the party the SDP wing is weakened, as they lose the left protest vote, leaving the true Liberal party which I believe will survive and win elections. (perhaps not as many seats).

By the way your comment about the Liberal government being radical for the climate they operated in is a very good point, not something I had really considered properly.
whodoo is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 14:22
Soppyfan
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: My DJ Studio
Posts: 22,141
And didn't Blair also introduce student tuition fees in 2003 - despite promising in his 2001 manifesto not to do so. So they were prone to hypocrisy too.
The far left will always deny that when we all know it happened in front of them.
Soppyfan is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 25-04-2012, 15:22
Airam
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,575
PR has inevitably led to ..................

a majority government in Scotland.

No-one can say for sure what the future holds. Only the voters of the electorate have the real power and the answer to where any system will lead.
Airam is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 23:59.