Why the lib-dems are shit

[butchersapron]

No, I'm operating on the assumption that if they busy fighting each other at the next election that avoids the situation of a Tory walkover in the South allowing them to concentrate their cash on marginals that Labour needs to win if both coalition partners are to be swept out. Unless, we think that a formal electoral pact is a real possibility...?

I think the LDs are just opportunists through and through - they can mutate into whatever form suits their perceived self interests in any particular time or place. It's like some political version of V! I'm all for damaging and weakening them - but they aren't the overriding consideration on everything under the sun. Why cut off anti-coaltion noses to spite the LDs? Only the Tories win if you take that line. AV would allow for clever opposition to the LDs that would help maximise the chances of getting rid not just of Clegg but of Cameron too.

Do you actually realise how much you're twisting and turning. I say that your position is actually one that's simple auto-labourism, it argues for an approach designed to bring about maximum electoral benefit for labour and you reply by saying no it's not - it's one that's designed to bring about maximum electoral benefit for labour. (edit: but, in order to end auto-labourism!)

What difference would either a ld or tory victory make in that tiny handful of ld/C marginals? (about 25 i think)They've just spent the last 6 months demonstrating that they're ideological twins. That they might have to stand against each other and spend some cash which might then benefit labour is not a good enough - logically or politically - to pass up a chance to do potential damage to one component of the coalition thereby thereby weakening the coalition by bringing contradictions and disagreements to the fore etc. This potential to harm the cuts program is far more important than working to help your labour party.

And no one is saying the Lib-dems 'are the only consideration' under the sun - no one. Quite the opposite. You've been presented with a well thought out scenario designed to do maximum damage to the coalition over through one single issue. You've responded by calling those arguing for it tories, not only tories but unintelligent tories at that, and unintelligent tories who don't seem to want to help labour either.

 

[redsquirrel]

4) The switch to preferential voting makes STV (ie. PR) for local government a very easy step to take - to make consistent local elections England and Wales with Scotland and N. Ireland (already use STV).

You keep making this claim yet you provide no evidence to back them up. It didn't happen in Australia and it isn't going to any time soon

 

[articul8]

You keep making this claim yet you provide no evidence to back them up. It didn't happen in Australia and it isn't going to any time soon

What was the interval between Scotland getting electoral reform for the Scottish Parliament, and getting STV for local elections? Less than a decade. WHy couldn't same happen in England and Wales?

 

[articul8]

Butchers

My position even in the short-term isn't accurately described as auto-Labourism as it argues simultaneously for extra-parliamentary opposition to the cuts which goes far beyond what the current Labour leadership are proposing - in so far as it bears any relation to auto-Labourism, it is to the extent that the FPTP system demands it. To say it makes no difference whether we have a Labour government or one with one or more combination of coalition partners is simply irresponsible. It is precisely that structural feature that I think needs to be undermined, but it can't be ignored or wished away.
What are 25 marginal seats? a) could be the difference a Labour majority or not, b) if there are 25 less seats that the Tories need to spend money in they can spend it more damagingly elsewhere and c) it's not just those - it includes the wider pool of seats the Tories currently have a sub 5000 majority in but wouldn't otherwise be competitively fought at the next GE under FPTP

The LDs will be in internal dissaray whatever happens in the referendum - a NO vote won't quicken the demise of the coalition. But it will make it harder to avoid a Tory majority at the following election. You are not a Tory. Just being a useful idiot for them.

Frogwoman

you are seeming to see everything from the perspective of getting labour back, as tho this would change everything and make everything better.

Eh?
I've explicitly argued that simply returning a Labour government is not in itself a solution to anything - but that fact that it isn't sufficient doesnt' mean it is not still in some sense necessary - but alongside a powerful broad extra-parliamentary movement against the cuts - including the ones Labour agree with.

 

[Random]

Why is getting Labour into power necessary? I would have thought that 13 years of labour would have kicked that idea out of most lefties.

 

[Streathamite]

What was the interval between Scotland getting electoral reform for the Scottish Parliament, and getting STV for local elections? Less than a decade. WHy couldn't same happen in England and Wales?

because those who will fight it hardest - in both Labour and the Tories - are truly brilliant at obstructive and delaying tactics, and because this is a country where, historically, political change happens very s-l-o-w-l-y

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I agree with articul8 broadly. If what you want is better PR than AV, getting AV first when it's the only alternative to FPTP on the table is a good step.

When women over 30 were granted the vote in 1918, those who opposed women's suffrage thought that they had effectively barred equal women's rights for at least a generation by getting this watered-down version accepted. Full voting rights for women followed just 10 years later.

 

[articul8]

Why is getting Labour into power necessary? I would have thought that 13 years of labour would have kicked that idea out of most lefties.

Well if you want to mount an electoral challenge to the coalition parties, it is realistically the only national alternative. But obviously that's not to say that this is a healthy situation - plainly it isn't. And I'm certainly not arguing all other forms of political action should be subordinated to getting Labour elected. But a powerful movement against the cuts in the country would force Labour to shift to accommodate that mood.

 

[frogwoman]

it didnt before tho did it? when they got elected in 1997 people thought it'd be time for a change as the tories had been in power for so long, but it wasn't apart from a few small things

 

[Random]

I remember back in 1997 - back then I thought that under a Labour administration a left of labour opposition would flourish. Instead the opposite happened. I hope nowadays most people hve learnt that if you want a left of labour grassroots resistance you have to build it, electing Labour won't offer any help or any shortcuts.

 

[articul8]

it didnt before tho did it? when they got elected in 1997 people thought it'd be time for a change as the tories had been in power for so long, but it wasn't apart from a few small things

That's my point that simply returning Labour with a majority *in the absence of significant extra-parliamentary opposition* won't be enough. The more that social counterweights to neoliberalism are able to exert resistance, the more Labour will find itself coming under real pressure to contest the current agenda (of course I'm under no illusion that it won't be lead by people at the top who will see their role as restraining and diverting that pressure - but that's where a real crunch point could develop).

 

[Streathamite]

But a powerful movement against the cuts in the country would force Labour to shift to accommodate that mood.

what on earth makes you confident that it would do that? a 'powerful movement against the war in the country' - including the biggest protest march ever seen in the UK - didn't stop them from taking us into the Iraq war.

 

[frogwoman]

You talk about real extra parliamentary opposition but at the same time you're criticising that opposition when it coems in the shape of the voting no to AV, etc, on the grounds it and that the existence of these other views will make it less easy for Labour. Isn't that what opposition is meant to do, to oppose? And to oppose neo-liberalism shouldn't "we" be at least criticising it in all of its variants?

 

[articul8]

You talk about real extra parliamentary opposition but at the same time you're criticising that opposition when it coems in the shape of the voting no to AV, etc, on the grounds it and that the existence of these other views will make it less easy for Labour. Isn't that what opposition is meant to do, to oppose? And to oppose neo-liberalism shouldn't "we" be at least criticising it in all of its variants?

Extra-parliamentary opposition doesn't necessarily mean anti-parliamentary opposition - my support for AV is tactical, instrumental. It's because I think it will help to have a positive effect in overcoming the logjam that democratic politics has found itself in - I'm not saying that all we need is AV and everything's fine. It wouldn't be. But would we be better or worse than if FPTP continued? Opposition out of principle to something strategically beneficial simply simply because the LDs want it is just dumb. And it's giving a stragic centrality to defeating the LDs that's way out of proportion to their actual importance. You are paying them a compliment in an odd sort of way!

 

[frogwoman]

I don't tihnk it will have that effect though. And maybe it is the lack of change and the fact that they basically all stand for the same shit that will get people to see how ridiculous mainstream politics actually is. As if enough people, even ones who are completely non political, dont see this already.

im not making it into a central consideration, i just don't think we should supporting anything the lib dems do that will allow them to say theyre progressive again, fuck that

 

[butchersapron]

Extra-parliamentary opposition doesn't necessarily mean anti-parliamentary opposition - my support for AV is tactical, instrumental. It's because I think it will help to have a positive effect in overcoming the logjam that democratic politics has found itself in - I'm not saying that all we need is AV and everything's fine. It wouldn't be. But would we be better or worse than if FPTP continued? Opposition out of principle to something strategically beneficial simply simply because the LDs want it is just dumb. And it's giving a stragic centrality to defeating the LDs that's way out of proportion to their actual importance. You are paying them a compliment in an odd sort of way!

You appear not to be reading what others have posted:

A damaged lib-dems, exposed to the full reality of how they're now nationally despised as result of their pro-cuts agenda is more likely to attempt to reign in those policies that they're currently aggressively pursuing exactly in pursuit of that electoral self interest, heightening any contradictions within the tory element of the coalition - thus weakening the coalition. You've totally misread a tactical move to weaken and damage the coalition as a claim that it will bring the coalition down, and on the day after your referendum defeat.

How many times do you need to be told that attacking the lib-dems is attacking the coalition, it's not proposing attacking the lib-dems alone or any such thing. It recognises that the coalition has a weak spot - the lib-dems. The lib-dems in turn have a weak spot, (this referendum). Attack the double weak spot.

...and i note we're back to the argument that your tactical instrumental approach is intelligent but others similarly nuanced approach is dumb. This is, of course, also represented by your insistence that others are just dumbly attacking the lib-dems alone blind to how this will help the tories and ignorant as to why they should be concerned with helping labour.

You've totally failed to sustain the case that a yes vote is 'strategically beneficial' as well. Considering your whole argument rests on it this is a pretty fatal flaw. I don't see how it is 'strategically beneficial' and i've found your arguments as to why it is to be unconvincing to say the least - i understand why you need to make them though. I think you're making an argument for throwing away short-medium term gain in order for your pet project of inside/outside/upside down having/your/cake/and/eating it position to claim some sort of immediate self-justification for existing. It's becoming clearer just whose pet-project this is by the day.

edit: in fact the only strategic benefit would be, if you're correct, for labour. Who you support. But want people to break from. By voting for them. From outside of labour. And inside of labour. And against labour. But not now. Now they need to be supported. By voting for them. This is the only way to break from them. Apparently. Maybe even joining labour. To break from labour. And so on.

 

[i_got_poison]

nick clegg fighting the good fight

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/15/nick-clegg-pupil-premium-shadow-deficit

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

nick clegg fighting the good fight

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/15/nick-clegg-pupil-premium-shadow-deficit

Gove announces that all "non-essential" DfE spending is to be cut i.e. play schemes, adventure playgrounds, etc to focus on school spending - then this opportunistic bastard makes an announcement that both covers up that massive cut as well as providing a further fiscal incentive for private companies to want to get involved in free schools and academies - fuck all to do with helping poorer pupils imo.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Gove announces that all "non-essential" DfE spending is to be cut i.e. play schemes, adventure playgrounds, etc to focus on school spending

Fuck that's depressing. It is really depressing seeing what they're doing.

 

[articul8]

How many times do you need to be told that attacking the lib-dems is attacking the coalition, it's not proposing attacking the lib-dems alone or any such thing. It recognises that the coalition has a weak spot - the lib-dems. The lib-dems in turn have a weak spot, (this referendum). Attack the double weak spot.

But how will losing the referendum politically change the stance taken by Lib Dem MPs in support of coalition policy? At best it will make one or two more already disgruntled backbenchers more disgruntled. Is that worth keeping FPTP in place for another 20 or 30 years at least. I don't think so, because it doesn't have any practical effect on either the longevity or the political direction of the coalition. But it does make it harder to some extent to avoid one or other (or both) of them being returned to government at the next election. Attack the coalition fine, but not indiscriminately. Where is the gain?

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

Fuck that's depressing. It is really depressing seeing what they're doing.

The government plans to cut "non-essential" education projects including youth clubs, after-school music and art activities and child safety projects to meet its commitment to increase funding for disadvantaged children under a pupil premium.

Michael Gove's education department will make deep cuts to £13.9bn of centrally-funded programmes in next week's spending review to help pay for top-up payments for poorer pupils. The pupil premium will form the centrepiece of the government's claim that the cuts are progressive. grauniad and these objectionable cunts claim that's progressive!!!

 

[butchersapron]

But how will losing the referendum politically change the stance taken by Lib Dem MPs in support of coalition policy? At best it will make one or two more already disgruntled backbenchers more disgruntled. Is that worth keeping FPTP in place for another 20 or 30 years at least. I don't think so, because it doesn't have any practical effect on either the longevity or the political direction of the coalition. But it does make it harder to some extent to avoid one or other (or both) of them being returned to government at the next election. Where is the gain?

Again:

A damaged lib-dems, exposed to the full reality of how they're now nationally despised as result of their pro-cuts agenda is more likely to attempt to reign in those policies that they're currently aggressively pursuing exactly in pursuit of that electoral self interest, heightening any contradictions within the tory element of the coalition - thus weakening the coalition. You've totally misread a tactical move to weaken and damage the coalition as a claim that it will bring the coalition down, and on the day after your referendum defeat.

Yesterday you correctly characterised those lib-dem MPs as spineless careerists - what better way to put them in fear of losing their lucrative careers by giving them a glimpse of how they're hated and what's driving the hatred?

I couldn't give a shit if we get FPTP for another 20 or 30 years - that's your particular bogeyman, not mine or others. With AV you'll get the exact same scenario as you're painting as so terrifying. You'll get the same with other proper versions of PR too. We're back to your cart/horse problem again.

Gain? To who? You and your lib-lab refoundation mates? Nowhere. To those who recognise that the coalition needs to be fucked up as quick as possible to prevent the cuts - potentially plenty.

 

[articul8]

I just think you're plain wrong to say they will slam the break pedal on the cuts as a result of losing the referendum. That would delight the Tories, make them feel invincible and gird their loins! In fact it will make the LDs all the more desperate to avoid another election for 4 years and desperately trying to sell their agenda is necessary and inevitable - on in "in for a penny in for a pound" basis.

 

[frogwoman]

I just think you're plain wrong to say they will slam the break pedal on the cuts as a result of losing the referendum. That would delight the Tories, make them feel invincible and gird their loins!

No it wouldn't.

 

[articul8]

Not Cameron maybe, but the Tory party more generally definitely. Why have they got Lynton Crosby, Boris's people. Taxpayers Alliance, No to EURO etc people all jumping up and down about it?

 

[butchersapron]

I didn't say they'd slam the brakes on. I said the defeat in the referendum will send them a clear message (one that their self-interest will want to heed) that the cuts are damaging them and that this will heighten the submerged tensions conflicts and disagreements currently hidden in the coalition, weakening it, putting agreed plans and programs under scrutiny and pressure (again, quite likely to be driven by self-interest)

It's not going in is it? I just repeated myself three times that this isn't about forcing an immediate election but about putting the coalition in a position of potential log-jam as regards the things that are driving the lib-dems ongoing collapse i.e the cuts.

And once more, in case you haven't noticed, the lib-dems are already in for-a-penny-in for a pound. A victory will enable them to say to what's left of their support inside and outside of parliament that look, we told you to be patient, but we've now delivered on out one big pledge. Coalition - this coalition works.

Your naivety on this is astonishing, as is your insistence that people are arguing the only position that you've got a worked out reply to. We're not.

 

[articul8]

and you haven't grasped that self-interest will bind the LDs closer to their coalition partners for fear of an early election, and the Tories will feel unstoppable. Whereas a YES vote will be a slap down for Cameron, will get the Tory right itching to blame him for the whole thing. Why wouldn;t that produce just as much internal grief and strain on the coalition as your scenario?

A NO vote would say people have faith in their political system, and trust the way things get done in Westminster. It would hardly be a revolutionary message.

 

[butchersapron]

I've disagreed with that proposed scenario. I'm not asking you to agree with my proposed scenario but to recognise what it is instead of this one you've prepared earlier and think you have the answers to.

I think the tories are not going to have to swallow AV, but if they have to they will. It can easily enough be sold as the final block on full PR that it represents. The tories are not going to destabilise the coalition over something so utterly meaningless. They're far too politically sussed to fall for that sort of guff.

 

[articul8]

I can recognise you're scenario (LD anxiety will undermine Clegg et al and will cause friction and paralysis in the coalition) but find it implausible, since rightly or wrongly they think that they need to prove that a coalition can do radical (radically right wing) things and win over the public in the longer term. Actually, I think Clegg isn't too fussed about winning the referendum - it would please his troops but he could live with losing. He really does believe in the small state.

 

[butchersapron]

I think the tories are not going to have to swallow AV, but if they have to they will. It can easily enough be sold as the final block on full PR that it represents. The tories are not going to destabilise the coalition over something so utterly meaningless. They're far too politically sussed to fall for that sort of guff. The lib-dems aren't and will. The tories can take the hit, the lib-dems can't.