When will the lib dem split happen?

[ymu]

Apologies if this is an inappropriate question for this thread. Could someone explain this quote from the Times 26/11:



Does this mean that the coalition will lose the vote in the HofC? Thank you.

No, it means it's virtually guaranteed to pass now - more likely than if Clegg et al voted for. The journalist hasn't done their homework. This is, of course, why Clegg is making out that it's a difficult decision, when it's actually the easiest way to make sure it passes. BA posted the maths somewhere. I'll attempt to recreate it accurately, but with the numbers in your article.

651 MPs - 5 Sinn Fein absentees and no abstentions = 646 -> 323 votes to pass (if it's a tie, the speaker votes with the government). There are 307 Tories, so they would need 16 votes from other parties.

651 MPs - 5 Sinn Fein absentees - 42 abstaining Lib Dems = 604 -> 302 votes to pass. There are 307 Tories, so they can pass the vote without support from any other party.

It's a con, and that's a pathetically bad bit of journalism.

 

[ymu]

I dont agree with the cuts and I support the students but I just think attacks on the Lib Dems are lazy. We know all one main political parties are shit. Why not stop concentrating on the problems with the Lib Dems and come up with some actual solutions.

Alternative budgets and reasons why the cuts are not necessary have been posted many times on this and other threads. We are not short of 'solutions', we are short on power to enact those solutions.

The Lib Dems have the power to stop this right now. If they won't resign voluntarily they must be forced to do so. And the next government has to know that exactly the same thing will happen to them if they persist with the cuts insanity.

 

[killer b]

No, it means it's virtually guaranteed to pass now - more likely than if Clegg et al voted for.

it isn't more likely to pass than if the lib dems voted for at all. but it will pass, and an abstention is as good as a vote for in these circumstances. and people know that.

 

[killer b]

actually, i guess mathematically it does. but that assumes the lib dems could vote either way - which as we know isn't really true, at least not in any significant numbers. in fact, the journalist has the maths bang on - he's just included sinn fein in his calculations.

 

[ymu]

actually, i guess mathematically it does. but that assumes the lib dems could vote either way - which as we know isn't really true, at least not in any significant numbers. in fact, the journalist has the maths bang on - he's just included sinn fein in his calculations.

No. If 32 or more Lib Dems abstain, the Tories can pass it on their own, because the effective size of the house is reduced by 37 (=32+5), to 614 seats. This would mean only 307 yes votes needed to pass it - which the Tories can do on their own.

The journo has the maths wrong because he's assuming they still need 323 votes to win if Lib Dems abstain. They don't. It doesn't reduce the coalition's majority to 11 - it gives the Tories an outright majority.

There is no assumption there about how the other Lib Dems vote. It depends solely on the number of abstentions, and the more the better for the Tories.

 

[killer b]

whoops. yep, you're right, he has got the maths wrong. me too.

blame the time of morning...

i think it's a red herring to suggest that liberal abstentions improve the tory lot though, regardless of the maths. it's no different than a vote for the government in practice - hopefully this will be a point made over and over again to lib dem MPs over the coming weeks.

 

[ymu]

whoops. yep, you're right, he has got the maths wrong. me too.

blame the time of morning...

i think it's a red herring to suggest that liberal abstentions improve the tory lot though, regardless of the maths. it's no different than a vote for the government in practice - hopefully this will be a point made over and over again to lib dem MPs over the coming weeks.

It's a very easy error to make - we rarely see abstentions mattering in big votes, so we're not used to thinking about it.

And that's why it isn't a red herring. It's a deliberate con. This was set up right from the start as a means for Clegg to appear hand-wringy and appease his party, whilst making no difference whatsoever.

A while ago a Tory minister was reported as saying that a typical exchange between Tories and Lib Dems in the cabinet goes like this:

LD: You know we have to have a row about this, don't you?
T: Yes, how does next Tuesday suit you?

This is just more of that.

 

[little_legs]

No, it means it's virtually guaranteed to pass now - more likely than if Clegg et al voted for. The journalist hasn't done their homework. This is, of course, why Clegg is making out that it's a difficult decision, when it's actually the easiest way to make sure it passes. BA posted the maths somewhere. I'll attempt to recreate it accurately, but with the numbers in your article.

651 MPs - 5 Sinn Fein absentees and no abstentions = 646 -> 323 votes to pass (if it's a tie, the speaker votes with the government). There are 307 Tories, so they would need 16 votes from other parties.

651 MPs - 5 Sinn Fein absentees - 42 abstaining Lib Dems = 604 -> 302 votes to pass. There are 307 Tories, so they can pass the vote without support from any other party.

It's a con, and that's a pathetically bad bit of journalism.

many thanks, ymu. the vote is in the bag then.

 

[belboid]

No, it means it's virtually guaranteed to pass now - more likely than if Clegg et al voted for. .

Utter rubbish. Complete nonsense indeed. And obvious fucking nonsense if you actually stop and think about it for a moment.

There are 306 tories, v 255 labour & 25 others. So 29 Liberal Scum would need to stick to what they said they'd do. Liberal abstention only makes things 'easier' because we know where we can put them in the equation. But if they all voted FOR the government it would be unbeatable.

 

[ymu]

Utter rubbish. Complete nonsense indeed. And obvious fucking nonsense if you actually stop and think about it for a moment.

There are 306 tories, v 255 labour & 25 others. So 29 Liberal Scum would need to stick to what they said they'd do. Liberal abstention only makes things 'easier' because we know where we can put them in the equation. But if they all voted FOR the government it would be unbeatable.

Well duh!

If enough (32+) Lib Dems abstain, the Tories don't need any Lib Dems to vote in favour. 32 abstentions and 25 voting against and the bill still passes. The media are reporting this as if Lib Dems abstaining makes it harder for the bill to pass and is somehow honourable. This is a lie.

 

[shagnasty]

The tories have had to make another concession to the libdems by delaying the hb cap a year to give tenants a year to find alternative housing.So they are admitting that people will have to move and they are getting the jitters about the libdems fate

 

[ymu]

Delaying it so that people have time to move is hardly a concession - people will still have to move in the same timeframe, there will just be fewer landlords left with rent arrears whilst this massive game of musical houses is being played.

 

[chilango]

BBC Article on the failure of the abstention ploy to keep the Party together.

 

[Streathamite]

If all of the MPs on the 'no' list do vote against - 13 of them - they'll still get home, comfortably, unless tory backbenchers rebel too.

 

[frogwoman]

I sent two tory MPs emails last night warning them that I will not vote for them if they do this, I told one of them I was a lifelong conservative supporter and that he should vote against it for the good of the party

 

[chilango]

If all of the MPs on the 'no' list do vote against - 13 of them - they'll still get home, comfortably, unless tory backbenchers rebel too.

Yeah. This Bill will get through. But, it could be the first major crack in the weak point of the coalition though. Drive a wedge into the heart of the Lib Dems and hammer and hammer and hammer till they shatter.

 

[Santino]

Drive a wedge into the heart of the Lib Dems and hammer and hammer and hammer till the wedge pierces their heart in twain and they expire from massive blood loss.

Fixed that for you.

 

[little_legs]

If all of the MPs on the 'no' list do vote against - 13 of them - they'll still get home, comfortably, unless tory backbenchers rebel too.

The FT 02/12 suggests that some LibDems may have to vote for the bill:

One senior Lib Dem admitted on Wednesday night that a three-way split on the vote looked inevitable.

The desire for consensus also has to be married with the realities of getting the vote through parliament. The party has been warned by the whips that giving backbenchers too much leeway could make the vote perilously tight, particularly if there was a loss of confidence among a handful of Tory MPs.

"If a lot of Lib Dems vote against, some will have to vote for to ensure it goes through," the senior Lib Dem said.

 

[frogwoman]

"have to" lol.

 

[little_legs]

they would not want to upset their de facto boss Cameron, would they?

 

[Streathamite]

I sent two tory MPs emails last night warning them that I will not vote for them if they do this, I told one of them I was a lifelong conservative supporter and that he should vote against it for the good of the party

as a matter of interest, how thick did you lay on the lifelong tory bit?

 

[frogwoman]

Lol I said this:


I am writing to tell you that I am extremely disappointed over Conservative policy on tuition fees. Having voted for you in the past, if you vote for this measure on the 9th of December I will not do so again. Many former students are facing large debts that they will struggle to pay off. For example, I myself am facing a debt of around £22, 000, and my sister will be saddled with an even larger sum. As you are no doubt aware, the Buckinghamshire area contains a large number of students and prospective students and so this is an extremely important electoral issue. Thus, as an ardent Conservative supporter, I am urging you to vote against a rise in tuition fees for the good of the party, as the loss of support which this may entail may be catastrophic. If you vote in favour of a rise in tuition fees I will not be voting for you again and will tell others not to do the same.

 

[stethoscope]

"have to" lol.

Innit!

 

[Santino]

"If a lot of Lib Dems vote against, some will have to vote for to ensure it goes through," the senior Lib Dem said.

What sickening, sickening cynicism. 'How many 'no' votes can we afford in order to maintain some credibility without actually threatening the bill being passed?' Total fucking cunts.

 

[Lock&Light]

Without threatening the survival of the government, is how they would put it.

 

[Streathamite]

Lol I said this:


I am writing to tell you that I am extremely disappointed over Conservative policy on tuition fees. Having voted for you in the past, if you vote for this measure on the 9th of December I will not do so again. Many former students are facing large debts that they will struggle to pay off. For example, I myself am facing a debt of around £22, 000, and my sister will be saddled with an even larger sum. As you are no doubt aware, the Buckinghamshire area contains a large number of students and prospective students and so this is an extremely important electoral issue. Thus, as an ardent Conservative supporter, I am urging you to vote against a rise in tuition fees for the good of the party, as the loss of support which this may entail may be catastrophic. If you vote in favour of a rise in tuition fees I will not be voting for you again and will tell others not to do the same.

nicely judged, that

 

[little_legs]

What sickening, sickening cynicism. 'How many 'no' votes can we afford in order to maintain some credibility without actually threatening the bill being passed?' Total fucking cunts.

The news is reporting that one of the 'yes' voters will Vince Cable.

 

[frogwoman]

What a fucking surprise

 

[little_legs]

i've got to admit that it's a surpise to me. a couple of days ago he said he would abstain. what the thell is wrong with these people!?!? first he split with his conscience, then with his party, now with himself. WHAT THE FUCK!!!!