Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Clegg to face leadership challenge following fees vote?

ymu said:
But you were implying that the only possible challengers were in government? They're not. 27 out of 34 backbenchers voted no. Greg Mulholland certainly seems to be positioning himself, and Tim Farron perhaps also. I think if one of them stood, there would be 6 MPs - backbenchers or otherwise - who would see it as in their best interests to support them. Whether the challenge would succeed is another matter. But it would pile up the pressure immensely - as, in fact, would a failure of the parliamentary party to act on demand for a leadership contest from the local parties.
Click to expand...

I'm suggesting that those most likely to be prepared to attempt bring Clegg down will be from the 'left'. I think that this was recognised by the lib-dem team right at the start and they tried to get any potential challengers onside though the use of govt positions and pay-rolls. The people who proposed this set up know damn well exactly how deep these 'left' principles were - not very deep indeed - as the tuition feees vote has shown as clearly as possible. Those on the traditional right (including those prepared to vote against the tuition fees bill) have no political desire or self-interest in bringing down Clegg or the coalition - their self-interest lies in the coalition recovering and allowing the, the room to look like they're influencing the coalition in ways their local electorate wants - it doesn't lie in splitting the party, The electorate punishes squabbling disunited parties, and that's exactly what they'll be if Clegg or the coalition is brought down. I want that to happen but it's wishful thinking to imagine these experienced MPs can't see the dangers that a challenge to Clegg may pose to them and their self interest. It would be a gamble that i can't see enough of them being willing to take.
 
I'm arguing that for some of them it's a bigger gamble to hang on in there. There won't be an economic miracle to save them by the next election - austerity budgets have never, ever worked in the situation we're in. Those who are facing Tories in second place cannot retain their seats at the next election even if a miracle does occur - there's no point voting for them any more.

If these people cared about being in a party with lots of seats in the national parliament, they wouldn't have joined the Lib Dems. They care about being big fish in small ponds.
 
At the end of the day, though, it's not going to happen without an alternative candidate - a Lib Dem MP who is a) credible and b) prepared to act as a figurehead for disgruntled activists. There just isn't anyone who fits that description.
 
ymu said:
I'm arguing that for some of them it's a bigger gamble to hang on in there. There won't be an economic miracle to save them by the next election - austerity budgets have never, ever worked in the situation we're in. Those who are facing Tories in second place cannot retain their seats at the next election even if a miracle does occur - there's no point voting for them any more.

If these people cared about being in a party with lots of seats in the national parliament, they wouldn't have joined the Lib Dems. They care about being big fish in small ponds.
Click to expand...

When the cuts don't work they're going to be able to escape from the blame for them no matter where they are - their only hope is that they can salvage something by keeping the party together and hoping there's some wider economic turnaround. It's irrelevant whether that turnaround will happen or not - it's remains their only hope and they have to give themselves room for it to potentially happen. You seem to be confusing their motivations with want you want to see whilst simultaneously basing your argument on their self-serving motivations. Your motivations are not there's. They're mainstream politicians -all mainstream politicians know that a split, internally arguing disunited party is absolute poison - which is why i think they'll follow the path that seems to tally most with possible longer term self interest at the moment - keeping the party together and crossing their fingers. Doesn't matter if crossing their fingers won't help them.
 
tbaldwin said:
REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH AND POWER........
It used to be quite popular to talk about those issues once upon a time....Until the Liberal Left came to dominate the Left.
Click to expand...

Pardon.. are the tories doing that? (Well they are redistributing from poor to rich I suppose)
 
Streathamite said:
you've totally, compeletely misunderstood what he meant.
Click to expand...

No people like you and him believe that the anti cuts movement should not highlight issues of inequality eg Education and Massive Salaries for bosses in the public sector....You might not realise your helpful stooges but that is what you are. You just want more of the same from the 80s and are more than content to just play the game.
 
Streathamite said:
not if there's a complete change of 'top table', and they spin like mad to repudiate all the doings of the libdem ministers, and they hold off bring down the minority tory govt long enough to make the spinning sink home.
Click to expand...

... and then go to the election where both Labour and Tories - with a great deal of justification - point to them as an option which cannot be trusted... and thats if those who have been kicked out and besmirched by the new regime (if its happened as thoroughly as you suggest it must) dont just ignore what the new lot say and vote with the Tories.

Please note that I am not saying that the Lib Dems are permanently attached to the Coalition, its just suggesting that they would bolt (in fact worse than bolt, destroy their party to get away) because of some mild upset over tuition fees (which is, lets not forget, the product of one of their ministers), and knowing that it would probably lead to them getting hammered and Labour getting in, is not very likely. It would probably take something like Iraq to properly fracture the government.
 
Whatever they do, it's Labour or the Tories getting in. That isn't relevant. Why on earth do you think it is? Their choice is between propping up the most unpopular government in living memory vs forcing an election which will effectively be a referendum on the cuts.
 
ymu said:
Whatever they do, it's Labour or the Tories getting in. That isn't relevant. Why on earth do you think it is? Their choice is between propping up the most unpopular government in living memory vs forcing an election which will effectively be a referendum on the cuts.
Click to expand...

So basically you are saying "vote Labour", then.
 
agricola said:
What is it, then? Are you asking for people to vote "for the most unpopular government in living memory"?
Click to expand...

You may have missed it on other threads, but I have repeatedly argued that party politics is a dead end, that which bums are on which seats is irrelevant, and that the only democratic power we have is to draw lines which no government dare cross. We must bring down this government over the cuts and we must bring the next government down if they do not get the message and we must keep bringing them down until we get a government which dare not cross the lines we have drawn.

Arguing that its wrong to bring down a shit government because it will only mean another shit government is defeatist bollocks. They work for us - we have to learn how to sack them when they step out of line. I couldn't give a shit what the party of government is called - I care about what policies they implement.
 
ymu said:
You may have missed it on other threads, but I have repeatedly argued that party politics is a dead end, that which bums are on which seats is irrelevant, and that the only democratic power we have is to draw lines which no government dare cross. We must bring down this government over the cuts and we must bring the next government down if they do not get the message and we must keep bringing them down until we get a government which dare not cross the lines we have drawn.

Arguing that its wrong to bring down a shit government because it will only mean another shit government is defeatist bollocks. They work for us - we have to learn how to sack them when they step out of line. I couldn't give a shit what the party of government is called - I care about what policies they implement.
Click to expand...

This misses the point though, specifically that there is a weakness - the coalition itself - that the successor Labour government would (in all likelyhood) not have, it would (following your logic) have a sizeable majority and would be able to do as it pleased. Moreover, as we saw during the last thirteen years there would inevitably be numerous people going around saying that unless the Labour government was supported, or at least not seriously opposed, the Tories would get in and continue their evil Tory ways. People would go along with very dodgy policies for fear of the alternative, just as they did between 1997 and 2010.
 
I don't think it's sensible to draw analogies with 1997. Labour got far too easy a ride because we were all knocked out from 18 years of Tory rule. They didn't get as much of a drubbing as they deserved in May because the only alternative was the Tories, and because Cameron fucked up the campaign so spectacularly, but they were deeply unpopular and that isn't going to be forgotten in the euphoria of dumping the coalition.

The most in-yer-face protests so far have been from students, who voted overwhelmingly Lib Dem in May - more voted Lib Dem than Tory and Labour put together. They are not looking to reinstate the party they helped get rid of 6 months ago, and the anticuts movement as a whole won't stop after just one victory. It has no leaders - the trade unions and apologists for Labour have been nowhere to be seen.

The protests can only continue for as long as people are motivated to get out there and make it happen, of course, but I don't think many have memories short enough to think everything will be OK as long as Labour are in power. That's nuts.
 
tbaldwin said:
No people like you and him believe that the anti cuts movement should not highlight issues of inequality eg Education and Massive Salaries for bosses in the public sector.....
Click to expand...
What absolute bollocks! Given that you know ZERO of the nature and extent of my campaigning, you don't know - you can't know - what I say in the anti-cuts groups I work with. It's just a question of priorities and strategies, and I'm hardly in a position to dictate 'the line' to the entire anti-cuts movement!
Ye gods, balders, are you simply addicted to trotting out this bizarre meaningless bullshit, or are you actually mentally disturbed?
 
agricola said:
... and then go to the election where both Labour and Tories - with a great deal of justification - point to them as an option which cannot be trusted... and thats if those who have been kicked out and besmirched by the new regime (if its happened as thoroughly as you suggest it must) dont just ignore what the new lot say and vote with the Tories.

Please note that I am not saying that the Lib Dems are permanently attached to the Coalition, its just suggesting that they would bolt (in fact worse than bolt, destroy their party to get away) because of some mild upset over tuition fees (which is, lets not forget, the product of one of their ministers), and knowing that it would probably lead to them getting hammered and Labour getting in, is not very likely. It would probably take something like Iraq to properly fracture the government.
Click to expand...
but it's not just abo9ut tuition fees, it's about a whole range of cuts which, between them, have the potential to seriously piss off virtually the whole country other than the wealthy, and I can see that putting huge pressureson both the coalition and the lib dems internally. They're only 7 months in, this was just the first of many huge hurdles to jump, and already they're all over the place
 
The other point to be made is the danger here of the cuts triggering a second recession, causing more unemployment, homelessness, impoverishment and resultant social tension. If they do that, the coalition's unpopularity will increase exponentially. Osborne's gamble is that this won't happen; but it IS a gamble, a big one.
 
But it doesn’t matter, when Lib Dem ministers ignore the Federal Policy Committee and backbench rebels like Julian Huppert and Tim Farron. MPs who ignore pledges to electors will ignore pledges to members.

There are – understandably- concerns about the wisdom of conference delegates triggering a special conference to ‘recall’ the leadership’s policy and subject it to a full and open debate. Yet, in the absence of stomach for this, and in the absence of meaningful ways to pressure a change of course from within the party, there seem to be few viable alternatives to resignation.

Resignation is a blunt, empty, extreme response by members to MPs breaking their pledge. However, for a powerless grassroots member, resignation is the only viable weapon to pressure the powerful. It means disappointing and angering most of my closest friends, who will feel I’m deserting them in a struggle for the party’s soul. But I don’t see how ordinary members like myself can – in these extraordinary times where coalition contingency has rendered internal democracy meaningless – register our protest in any other way.
Click to expand...

Link
 
Yes, this was from last week, resignation on the basis that this wonderfully devolved and openly democratic party has no real means for the membership to to depose its leader. No contest.
 
I am with BA; I don’t think there’s a hope in hell of this happening for the reasons he’s posted.

I am also in no doubt that they have dealt with the fees issue so early on, knowing it was a big problem for the LibDems, to get it out of the way. Now they will move onto things they are more in agreement on and attempt to repair the damage over the next few years.

The LibDems have always been in a difficult position, because when a hang parliament happens it doesn’t matter what they do – it will always cause a split in the party.

Despite the fees issue, that link posted earlier in the thread to the report on the yougov poll still shows about 50% LibDem voters support the coalition with the Tories, about 30% wanted them to stay in opposition and about 20% wanted a coalition with Labour.

With those figures, if the local parties tried to break the coalition they would be even more fucked than they are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MrCurry
  • Poll
Tory leadership contest 2024
31 32 33 34 35
Replies
1K
Views
34K
PR1Berske
PR1Berske
RubyBlue
Who to vote for?
Replies
14
Views
483
dessiato
dessiato
L
“Be Lazy. Just Vote”
Replies
3
Views
2K
Monkeygrinder's Organ
M
Eric Jarvis
New group to challenge Steve Reed at general election
Replies
20
Views
1K
Eric Jarvis
Eric Jarvis
chilango
Where are you on the "Vote Compass"?
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
Shippou-Sensei
Shippou-Sensei
Back
Top Bottom