Why the lib-dems are shit

[glenquagmire]

I'm sorry that you see democracy and socialism as only instrumentally related. I suspect your sort of socialism would be a grim set-up run by bossy people with party-approved opinions. Most people would have to do what they're told, but it'd be for their own good and in the name of the working clas or the people or something.

The socialism I want has democracy at its nub. It is the extension of democracy over our common life and in particular over what and how and how much we produce and what we then do with and how we distribute our products. Is that really a 'bizarre liberal fetish'?

Well yes, obviously socialism is the "extension of democracy over our common life".

But the only question about the different forms of 'democracy' which we have in the meantime, under capitalism, is whether they get us nearer to socialism and whether they materially improve life for the working class. Anything else is a bizarre liberal fetish.

 

[JHE]

The dispute over Clegg's membership of the Cambridge University Conservative Association is very odd. It would be foolish of him to deny it if there is documentary evidence and there are lots of people who can remember.

Is there in fact here only an apparent contradiction? Has Clegg said he was not a Tory, rather than that he was not a member?

I can think of two reasons why someone might join a student political association other than support for the party concerned.

1. When I was a student many years ago some student societies had trouble getting enough members to get their little dollop of student union dosh. Sometimes members of two societies with that difficulty would become each other's paper members to help out with the numbers. The Libertarian Socialists and the Hot Air Ballooners might join each other so that both got the money. (The particular example is entirely invented.)

2. I have read of some people - I think it was at Oxford or Cambridge - joining all the main political societies in order to be able to go to any or all of the meetings with famous visiting politicians.

In the case of the Cambridge Conservatives, the second sounds more likely.

 

[JHE]

Well yes, obviously socialism is the "of democracy over our common life".

But the only question about the different forms of 'democracy' which we have in the meantime, under capitalism, is whether they get us nearer to socialism and whether they materially improve life for the working class. Anything else is a bizarre liberal fetish.

Right. It'll all be very democratic, but that will start only after the revolution?

 

[butchersapron]

The dispute over Clegg's membership of the Cambridge University Conservative Association is very odd. It would be foolish of him to deny it if there is documentary evidence and there are lots of people who can remember.

Is there if fact here only an apparent contradiction? Has Clegg said he was not a Tory, rather than that he was not a member?

I can think of two reasons why someone might join a student political association other than support for the party concerned.

1. When I was a student many years ago some student societies had trouble getting enough members to get their little dollop of student union dosh. Sometimes members of two societies with that difficulty would become each other's paper members to help out with the numbers. The Libertarian Socialists and the Hot Air Ballooners might join each other so that both got the money. (The particular example is entirely invented.)

2. I have read of some people - I think it was at Oxford or Cambridge - joining all the main political societies in order to be able to go to any or all of the meetings with famous visiting politicians.

In the case of the Cambridge Conservatives, the second sounds more likely.

He didn't join either the liberals or labour clubs though - only the tory one. The only wriggle room he has is that that CUCA is that membership below the level of officer doesn't require membership of the party.

 

[glenquagmire]

Right. It'll all be very democratic, but that will start only after the revolution?

How on earth did you possibly read that from my previous posting?

Are you sure you're actually reading these before responding?

 

[JHE]

How on earth did you possibly read that from my previous posting?

Are you sure you're actually reading these before responding?

Are there any extensions of democracy that you support in the here and now (this side of the expropriation of the capitalists)? You've made it clear that you are not bothered by whether we have a proportional or a crap disproportional (undemocratic) electoral system, but perhaps there are some other democratic reforms you want.

 

[paulhackett]

Is that right? I'd read it was because Lord Carrington, long term tory politician and family friend of the Cleggs got him the job. I expect both of these elite connections helped him.

(He again denies - today - ever being in the Cambridge University Conservative Association in that linked article btw, and also tells a half truth about his employment under Brittain)

I don't know the relevance other than another connection to Toad face but they were at school together.

The dispute over Clegg's membership of the Cambridge University Conservative Association is very odd. It would be foolish of him to deny it if there is documentary evidence and there are lots of people who can remember.

Is there in fact here only an apparent contradiction? Has Clegg said he was not a Tory, rather than that he was not a member?

I can think of two reasons why someone might join a student political association other than support for the party concerned.

1. When I was a student many years ago some student societies had trouble getting enough members to get their little dollop of student union dosh. Sometimes members of two societies with that difficulty would become each other's paper members to help out with the numbers. The Libertarian Socialists and the Hot Air Ballooners might join each other so that both got the money. (The particular example is entirely invented.)

2. I have read of some people - I think it was at Oxford or Cambridge - joining all the main political societies in order to be able to go to any or all of the meetings with famous visiting politicians.

In the case of the Cambridge Conservatives, the second sounds more likely.

There was one head of a University Conservative Association who used it as an opportunity to hone his debating skills (can't remember his name but he'd been in the Labour party up till then).

Call it pre-internet trolling.. I doubt that's the case with Clegg though.

 

[glenquagmire]

Are there any extensions of democracy that you support in the here and now (this side of the expropriation of the capitalists)? You've made it clear that you are not bothered by whether we have a proportional or a crap disproportional (undemocratic) electoral system, but perhaps there are some other democratic reforms you want.

Very possible. Maybe term limits? Right of recall? Something like that mightn't be a bad idea. Maybe AV or something.

Despite what you write, I have at no point expressed opposition to PR per se, merely that any changes to the current capitalist 'democracy' should be judged against the criteria of how they advance our class interests, rather than some nebulous bourgeois concept of 'fairness'. As if parliamentary elections can ever be fair in a capitalist society.

 

[JHE]

Very possible. Maybe term limits? Right of recall? Something like that mightn't be a bad idea. Maybe AV or something.

Despite what you write, I have at no point expressed opposition to PR per se, merely that any changes to the current capitalist 'democracy' should be judged against the criteria of how they advance our class interests, rather than some nebulous bourgeois concept of 'fairness'. As if parliamentary elections can ever be fair in a capitalist society.

I know you haven't said you are against PR. You have said you "don't care".

Why the hell you would think AV a good idea I can't imagine.

 

[butchersapron]

Because, iirc the Jenkins Commission found that it was the non-pure FPTP system that would give the largest number of seats to Labour?

 

[glenquagmire]

I know you haven't said you are against PR. You have said you "don't care".

Why the hell you would think AV a good idea I can't imagine.

I "don't care" as I don't perceive that it would advance the cause as described above. It's not a blanket opposition to PR, just that I haven't been convinced it would be of any benefit to socialist politics.

As somebody wise pointed out above, we should be aiming to win over a majority of the population, in which case we would have power under pretty much any parliamentary system.

 

[glenquagmire]

Because, iirc the Jenkins Commission found that it was the non-pure FPTP system that would give the largest number of seats to Labour?

More likely because it's the only one I've heard much discussion of recently and I'm not very expert in different forms of PR.

 

[JHE]

Because, iirc the Jenkins Commission found that it was the non-pure FPTP system that would give the largest number of seats to Labour?

It would help parties that are least hated, rather than those that are most supported. IIRC, Jenkins was explicit in designing an electoral reform proposal (AV+) that would help centre parties, like the Lib Dems and a Blairised Labour Party. He wanted to keep nasty extremists like Glen out of parliament.

 

[Diamond]

AV does not represent any kind of major reform though. As far as I understand it, it makes FPTP more efficient but doesn't address the situation of representation across the board. If anything it will just concentrate the power of the major parties and reinforce the duopoly.

That is not what the electorate appears to want.

 

[glenquagmire]

I've not read the Jenkins Report, in case you can't tell.

 

[TAE]

Nick Clegg, Cambridge University Conservative Association:

http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/1559/cucatory.jpg

8th name down on the left.

An unreadable JPEG on imageshack, yeah that's totally convincing.

How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
Party lists and party power surely.

The same as under FPTP, except the whole electorate get to decide, not just that constituency.

 

[butchersapron]

An unreadable JPEG on imageshack, yeah that's totally convincing.

Perfectly readable, just zoom in. It was provided by the sec of the group at the time (now a Tory MP) after fellow lib-dems hinted at it during the leaderhip election. Seriously, google the story - it's kosher.

 

[butchersapron]

The same as under FPTP, except the whole electorate get to decide, not just that constituency.

What sort of PR allows the whole electorate to get rid of MPs? Any system of PR we have will be tied to regional lists and constituencies in some way. It'll be those voters signing a recall petition or whatever mechanism is put in place, not everyone.

 

[stethoscope]

The Clegg stuff was originally posted on/broken by the ConservativeHome site if that's more convincing for you TAE. You'll find it through a google (I'm not linking!).

 

[Corax]

Perfectly readable, just zoom in. It was provided by the sec of the group at the time (now a Tory MP) after fellow lib-dems hinted at it during the leaderhip election. Seriously, google the story - it's kosher.

I'm not totally convinced it's as big a deal as you say.

I read the article you linked in hard copy earlier today.

Clegg's attendance at the John Locke society was more about the society and less about John Locke. Friends can't remember him having political affiliation and ridicule the idea that he was a Tory.

Instead Clegg's political activities at Cambridge, where he studied anthropology, stretched to organising a campaign for indigenous people.

His favourite academic work then was that of Prof Keith Hart on the informal economy and how the seemingly economically inactive in less developed countries were actually economically active in different ways.

There are claims of records showing he joined the Young Conservatives at university. Clegg says: "I know there are [those claims] but I was very, very, leftwing. I was very influenced by Marxist thinkers."

Harris says: "Nick was always looking abroad. He wasn't party-political and didn't spend his time on student politics. He was much more interested in the rest of the world than us."

When he did his thesis at the University of Minnesota, it was on the "deep green" movement and the idea that humans' effect on the environment was not being appreciated.

And the European job:

He worked for Brittan by managing development projects abroad, not writing political speeches, and Brittan didn't press Clegg too hard to convert to Conservatism.

"I think he may have tried a bit, but not that much. But what he did do was that he saw that I had a lot of strong opinions and he said 'You've got to do something about it' and I said, 'What, me?' " Brittan confirmed the story today.

Clegg recalls his time in Brussels was the era of the Tory government's "crazy insularity". He spent time in libraries reading, among other things, Locke, and being impressed by Ashdown, the first Lib Dem leader.

"I remember being very struck by Paddy Ashdown. At the height of the beef war, a great trade war between Europe and the United States about the use of hormones in beef, Paddy came to Strasbourg. I said to Leon, would you mind telling Paddy after your meeting that 'Nick Clegg is a big fan of yours and would like to get involved.'"

None of this is a nailed on refutation, but I do see it as plausible.

I'm not a cheerleader for the orange party btw, I just see them as least worst. I'm damn sure Clegg ain't perfect, and like most politicians he's almost certainly out for himself more than anything. My major spar of respect for the lib dems is based around Harris, not Clegg.

You know your shit better than I do though, so if there's something you know that demonstrates that Clegg's responses in that article are bs, I'd be genuinely interested.

 

[butchersapron]

He ran together two jobs in the European parliament into one. First his job at Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States which he slaps himself on the back for above was not for Leon Britain, it was for the for the european commission. After completing that job he then was taken on by Brittain as a political advisor in his personal office. He tries to pretend these were one and the same thing. It's habitual causal dishonesty typical of the old gang he claims that he's different from.

If you've been following the evolution of his CV today, you'll see he's also been forced to come clean about a later period of employment/partnership in GPlus political lobbyists - exactly the sort of people he's been attacking for bring the system into disrepute and putting the concerns of the powerful above those of the electorate. Clean hands? How about you come clean first 'Nick'?

 

[Corax]

He ran together two jobs in the European parliament into one. First his job at Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent States which he slaps himself on the back for above was not for Leon Britain, it was for the for the european commission. After completing that job he then was taken on by Brittain as a political advisor in his personal office. He tries to pretend these were one and the same thing. It's habitual causal dishonesty typical of the old gang he claims that he's different from.

If you've been following the evolution of his CV today, you'll see he's also been forced to come clean about a later period of employment/partnership in GPlus political lobbyists - exactly the sort of people he's been attacking for bring the system into disrepute and putting the concerns of the powerful above those of the electorate. Clean hands? How about you come clean first 'Nick'?

Cheers. Can't say I'm massively surprised.

 

[TAE]

Perfectly readable, just zoom in.

It's 300×456 pixels - did you link to the wrong file?

It was provided by the sec of the group at the time (now a Tory MP) after fellow lib-dems hinted at it during the leaderhip election. Seriously, google the story - it's kosher.

I'll have a look.

What sort of PR allows the whole electorate to get rid of MPs?

Why not? Depends on the system of PR of course, but I see no reason why voters should not be able to call for it. How would it work in a constituency? Why should the same mechanism, in princilple, not work for a whole country?

Any system of PR we have will be tied to regional lists and constituencies in some way. It'll be those voters signing a recall petition or whatever mechanism is put in place, not everyone.

If it is tied to a region/constituency then I see even less difference between recall of an MP under PR and FPTP.

MP is found to be corrupt, voters (be it in the constituency or whole country) demand a vote on removing him, votes takes place and MP is removed.

I don't see the difference - except maybe for how he is replaced.

 

[butchersapron]

It's 300×456 pixels - did you link to the wrong file?

No i didn't it's perfectly readable if you zoom in.

As for the rest, the PR stuff - you've totally misread me and have in fact just repeated my exact point apparently under the impression that i was saying the opposite. My point was that recall of MPs would be tied to constituencies or regions and so it wouldn't be the whole electorate voting on their recall - as opposed to your :

The same as under FPTP, except the whole electorate get to decide, not just that constituency.

I see clean hands clegg has found himself mired in yet another old corruption style financial scandal today - being funded by rich and powerful businessmen straight into his account. When he's giving that £2.4 million back as well? It's just more of the same isn't it?

 

[the button]

The businessmen paying the money to Clegg were Ian Wright, a senior executive at the drinks firm Diageo; Neil Sherlock, the head of public affairs at the accountants KPMG; and Michael Young, a former gold-mining executive.

Full steam ahead to the New Politics.

 

[Bailey]

They'll scrap Trident. I'm all for this. I'm a pacifist, so sue me.
They want to scrap FPTP in favour of a form of PR. This is probably the most attractive part of their policies, for me.

Would they ..?

 

[London_Calling]

No, we need Trident because North Korea could attack the UK at any moment!

 

[butchersapron]

Break up the NHS demands Clegg

When his colleague David Laws MP, in an article in the now notorious Orange Book broached the question of reforming the NHS, he was almost lynched by his colleagues. But Nick Clegg isn't content to hide behind the safe prosaic rhetoric that surrounds most health service debates. He rejects old platitudes and, in a refreshingly honest and outspoken intervention, declares bluntly the NHS should be "broken up".

"One very, very important point - I think breaking up the NHS is exactly what you do need to do to make it a more responsive service." Then he goes further, even refusing to rule out the insurance-based models used in mainland Europe and Canada.

"I don't think anything should be ruled out. I think it would be really, really daft to rule out any other model from Europe or elsewhere. I do think they deserve to be looked out because frankly the faults of the British health service compared to others still leave much to be desired."

Of course, he backed that up by going private himself. How much of this break up the NHS thinking appears in the manifesto? Nothing. What hard held principles!

 

[articul8]

Don't you see? This is the "graphite revolution", a "popular insurrection"...:
http://www.opendemocracy.net/anthony-barnett/our-graphite-revolution

 

[butchersapron]

Invisible Insurrection of a Million Empty Minds