New Tory Leader

[ricardo 7,474]

1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Sadly for you it is entirely irrelevant that Rayner was at the work event, because she was entirely in accordance with the Covid laws to be there. All this "leaked document" does is CONFIRM that the event was indeed a work event and not a party as you wrongly claim. The poor old Daily Fail's desperate attempt to smear Starmer will end up demonstrating the opposite of what they hope for.

I don't  make any claims Horsey. I'm just amused at the situation  the self righteous find themselves in. If there is any Sword of Damocles hanging over SKS, its one he put there himself.

[Herman 9,926]

35 minutes ago, ricardo said:

All slightly getting out of hand these retrospective FPN's. I doubt anybody can say hand on heart that they strictly followed the letter of the law. I freely admit that I didnt. 

Once the holier than thou attitude prevailed we were all in trouble.

If at the beginning Bozo had held his hands up, apologised and paid his fine this could have been buried a long time ago and his shills wouldn't have to, yet again, try and dig him out of his self dug hole. Too many people still ****-scooping for this clown.

[horsefly 4,372]

16 minutes ago, Badger said:

You may be right, but I certainly wouldn't wish to risk any of my assets on it. 😀

1. Obviously the party suffered heavily as a result of their part in the coalition. A large part of this was because of the nature of the agreement that they struck up - a looser arrangement would not have forced them to agree to a hostile environment etc. If they were power brokers next time, I doubt that they would have a formal coalition with either party. 

2. In the event of being power brokers, the LibDems would face a dilemma. They are ideologically much closer to the right of the Tory party than they are to Labour party - Davey is an Orange Book liberal. They are also more likely to pick the majority of their gains from the Conservative party rather than from the Labour party. Herein lies their dilemma: ideologically closer to the Tories with most of their gained seats coming from disillusioned Tory voters* both of which would make it very difficult for them to support a Labour govt committed to social justice. So what would they do?

* Contrary to some on this thread, I am not convinced that a change of leader won't see many of these return. Hence my view that it is was disappointing night for those wanting to see a Labour govt.

Badger, I just don't see where you get the view that the Libs are ideologically closer to the right of the Tory party. The right of the Tory Party is fiercely anti-EU and the Libs are fiercely pro-EU, never the twain shall meet. When asked about the possibility of future coalitions on Sky News this morning their spokesperson made it very clear that their first priority was to oust the Tories from power (not return them to power in a coalition). Their coalition with the Tories last time round saw them put on life support for many years, it seems wildly implausible to think they would make a second attempt at political suicide.

[Yellow Fever 3,886]

I must admit I find the Tory accusations against SKS totally childish, partisan and actually hugely hypercritical.

The Tories and the Mail are starting to give Italian politics a good name by comparison.

Let the Police investigate (again) but frankly anybody with even a modicum of so called 'critical thinking' can see the world of difference, a gulf in moral standard between the two parties in this matter. Then again I guess the Tories are not targeting those that think anymore.

Keep digging and smearing and I guess even more of the southern professional Tory voters will fully depart in disgust.

[horsefly 4,372]

11 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I don't  make any claims Horsey. I'm just amused at the situation  the self righteous find themselves in. If there is any Sword of Damocles hanging over SKS, its one he put there himself.

Best not to use the word "party" then. The daily Fail's "leaked document" is indisputably a schedule of work and the arrangements for supporting that work. I defy anyone to point to a single item on that schedule which was in breach of the Covid laws. If that really is all the Daily Fail and Tories have got then we can safely assume there's not a chance in hell that Starmer will receive a fine.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 06/05/2022 at 09:58, horsefly said:

It isn't that long ago we had the chance to vote for an alternative voting system. I did, most didn't. It's simply not true to say "not one politician wanted to change".

So you are still pretending that as a frequent voter of the party of your choice you should not have had any choice and you were happy with a pre chewed choice and agenda of your local Tory MP's. Not one politicians dared to give us a choice and no AV plus is not a proportional system, but, as you say you accept it and I don't

[horsefly 4,372]

59 minutes ago, ricardo said:

 I doubt anybody can say hand on heart that they strictly followed the letter of the law. I freely admit that I didnt. 

You may well be right that many ordinary people did push the boundaries at times. But we're not talking about ordinary people, and we're not talking about pushing the boundaries of Covid laws. We're talking about the very people in No.10 who wrote the laws flagrantly breaking those self same laws they strictly applied to the rest of us. I repeat again the example of the email sent by Johnson's principal private secretary Martin Reynolds: 

“Hi all, after what has been an incredibly busy period we thought it would be nice to make the most of the lovely weather and have some socially distanced drinks in the No 10 garden this evening. Please join us from 6pm and bring your own booze!”

That is not pushing at the boundaries of the law, neither is it a forgivable failure to strictly apply the letter of the law. It is a straightforward and flagrant invitation to break the Covid law. A breaking of the law that over 100 in no.10 seemed more than happy to commit on that occasion.

[ricardo 7,474]

18 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I must admit I find the Tory accusations against SKS totally childish, partisan and actually hugely hypercritical.

The Tories and the Mail are starting to give Italian politics a good name by comparison.

I think if you look more closely you will find it is largely being fuelled the anti SKS within Labour but no surprise that the Tories are piling on. 

[horsefly 4,372]

4 minutes ago, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

So you are still pretending that as a frequent voter of the party of your choice you should not have had any choice and you were happy with a pre chewed choice and agenda of your local Tory MP's. Not one politicians dared to give us a choice and no AV plus is not a proportional system, but, as you say you accept it and I don't

Try putting that into understandable English and I'll happily give you an answer.

[Badger 2,421]

8 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Badger, I just don't see where you get the view that the Libs are ideologically closer to the right of the Tory party. The right of the Tory Party is fiercely anti-EU and the Libs are fiercely pro-EU, never the twain shall meet. When asked about the possibility of future coalitions on Sky News this morning their spokesperson made it very clear that their first priority was to oust the Tories from power (not return them to power in a coalition). Their coalition with the Tories last time round saw them put on life support for many years, it seems wildly implausible to think they would make a second attempt at political suicide.

I agree that the EU issue confuses the issue slightly which is partly due to inadequacy of terms like "left" and "right."

Membership of the EU is not really a left-right issue. Many left wingers were anti-Europe and similarly many right wingers were in favour. Al this stuff goes back over two hundred years (Corn Laws; Imperial preference etc vs free trade which cut across the Tory party). 

The Orange book liberals are economic liberals in the tradition of Thatcher and Gladstone. They believe strongly in "market solutions" (oxymoron!) and are opposed to intervention into the market to ensure social justice etc. They are a totally different breed to the Lloyd George et al radicals. 

I attach a link but get the book - it will reshape your opinions, I suspect. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book

I don't really treat with much confidence what a spokesperson says at this stage. They are obviously looking to pick up disillusioned Tory voters + trying to con left wingers in "hopeless areas" to vote for them as anti-Tories, so they are going to say this. 

As I say, they face a dilemma - do they stick to their principles or support a labour govt, which if it follows a social justice agenda, will damage some of the Tory defectors that voted for them. It could be the same outcome electorally as supporting Cameron was in 2015. That's why I suspect that they won't go into coalition with anyone.

In the long term, perhaps the Lib dems best strategy would be to challenge the Tories as a new party on the right  - economically and socially liberal? (Although this could cause them to lose some of their social democrats).

 

[Badger 2,421]

25 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I must admit I find the Tory accusations against SKS totally childish, partisan and actually hugely hypercritical.

The Tories and the Mail are starting to give Italian politics a good name by comparison.

Let the Police investigate (again) but frankly anybody with even a modicum of so called 'critical thinking' can see the world of difference, a gulf in moral standard between the two parties in this matter. Then again I guess the Tories are not targeting those that think anymore.

Keep digging and smearing and I guess even more of the southern professional Tory voters will fully depart in disgust.

I largely agree, but if he has done nothing to worry about can't see why he doesn't make real political capital out of it.

He could clearly differentiate himself and make an impressive stand by saying - "if I am found guilty, I will resign." Obviously he presage this by saying he won't be.

Such a strategy would mark him out as different from the Tories and Johnson and a man of principle. It would, I believe make a big political impression.

I can't think of a reason why he wouldn't do this unless... (a little nagging doubt?)

[horsefly 4,372]

6 minutes ago, Badger said:

I agree that the EU issue confuses the issue slightly which is partly due to inadequacy of terms like "left" and "right."

Membership of the EU is not really a left-right issue. Many left wingers were anti-Europe and similarly many right wingers were in favour. Al this stuff goes back over two hundred years (Corn Laws; Imperial preference etc vs free trade which cut across the Tory party). 

The Orange book liberals are economic liberals in the tradition of Thatcher and Gladstone. They believe strongly in "market solutions" (oxymoron!) and are opposed to intervention into the market to ensure social justice etc. They are a totally different breed to the Lloyd George et al radicals. 

I attach a link but get the book - it will reshape your opinions, I suspect. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Orange_Book

I don't really treat with much confidence what a spokesperson says at this stage. They are obviously looking to pick up disillusioned Tory voters + trying to con left wingers in "hopeless areas" to vote for them as anti-Tories, so they are going to say this. 

As I say, they face a dilemma - do they stick to their principles or support a labour govt, which if it follows a social justice agenda, will damage some of the Tory defectors that voted for them. It could be the same outcome electorally as supporting Cameron was in 2015. That's why I suspect that they won't go into coalition with anyone.

In the long term, perhaps the Lib dems best strategy would be to challenge the Tories as a new party on the right  - economically and socially liberal? (Although this could cause them to lose some of their social democrats).

 

Thanks for the link. But also take a look at their key manifesto commitments in 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50459123. Do they look closer to the right of the Tory party, or closer to the current Labour party? It would be something of a stretch to say the former I think.

[Herman 9,926]

34 minutes ago, ricardo said:

I think if you look more closely you will find it is largely being fuelled the anti SKS within Labour but no surprise that the Tories are piling on. 

“The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

[Badger 2,421]

10 minutes ago, horsefly said:

Thanks for the link. But also take a look at their key manifesto commitments in 2019 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50459123. Do they look closer to the right of the Tory party, or closer to the current Labour party? It would be something of a stretch to say the former I think.

It's a manifesto! The Tories said the same things:

e.g. We want to give parents the freedom, support and choice to look after their children in the way that works best for them. We will establish a new £1 billion fund to help create more high quality, affordable childcare, including before and after school and during the school holidays. (P15)

e.g. Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year. (Which will cost more than Lib Dems penny on income tax)

e.g.. 20,000 more police.

e.g ... Leading a "Green" industrial revolution

e.g. Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt.

Jo Swinson was one of the right wing Lib Dems who were deliberately excluded from funding from (now ex?) donor Matthew Oakshott even though she was in a marginal seat. Oakshott was also an opponent of Clegg and other right-wing Lib Dems that still dominate the party leadership. 

 

[horsefly 4,372]

Adam Wagner, the expert go-to barrister on Covid law, is on Sky saying he sees nothing in the leaked document that suggests a breach of Covid laws, or would remotely suggest the police are likely to fine Starmer.

[BigFish 2,004]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Herein lies their dilemma: ideologically closer to the Tories with most of their gained seats coming from disillusioned Tory voters both of which would make it very difficult for them to support a Labour govt committed to social justice. So what would they do?

Not really certain this stacks up. LibDems have always been able to play to the left of of Tories and the right of Labour. But they are socially liberal, which stands in stark contract to Johnson's Blukip wing vote. They will be fishing in the floating vote cohort-younger, more educated. Where famously "LibDems winning here" claims stack up they will get support from Greens and Labour voters

[horsefly 4,372]

7 minutes ago, Badger said:

It's a manifesto! The Tories said the same things:

e.g. We want to give parents the freedom, support and choice to look after their children in the way that works best for them. We will establish a new £1 billion fund to help create more high quality, affordable childcare, including before and after school and during the school holidays. (P15)

e.g. Extra funding for the NHS, with 50,000 more nurses and 50 million more GP surgery appointments a year. (Which will cost more than Lib Dems penny on income tax)

e.g.. 20,000 more police.

e.g ... Leading a "Green" industrial revolution

e.g. Millions more invested every week in science, schools, apprenticeships and infrastructure while controlling debt.

Jo Swinson was one of the right wing Lib Dems who were deliberately excluded from funding from (now ex?) donor Matthew Oakshott even though she was in a marginal seat. Oakshott was also an opponent of Clegg and other right-wing Lib Dems that still dominate the party leadership. 

 

We are definitely going to disagree on this and only future events will determine who is right in the event of a hung parliament. I simply don't see the Libs ever being foolish enough to repeat the massive self-destructive mistake of enabling another Tory government. Bear in mind too that this Tory government and party is much further to the right than Cameron's. 

[Van wink 2,994]

Question is, does he enjoy a good Chaat or would he fancy the occasional Dum Aloo?

[king canary 7,801]

31 minutes ago, BigFish said:

Not really certain this stacks up. LibDems have always been able to play to the left of of Tories and the right of Labour. But they are socially liberal, which stands in stark contract to Johnson's Blukip wing vote. They will be fishing in the floating vote cohort-younger, more educated. Where famously "LibDems winning here" claims stack up they will get support from Greens and Labour voters

As the old notions of right and left have fallen apart the Lib Dems have actually done a solid job of establishing who they are for. Socially on the left, economically more on the right. Fundamentally the lib dems are the party of the suburban Liberal, someone who earns north of £50k, has a kid at uni and would attend a BLM protest but isn't keen to raise the top rate of tax.

[ricardo 7,474]

30 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Question is, does he enjoy a good Chaat or would he fancy the occasional Dum Aloo?

200 quid for 30 people indicates it was a bit down market.

Or were the drinks extra.

[PurpleCanary 5,651]

3 hours ago, Badger said:

You may be right, but I certainly wouldn't wish to risk any of my assets on it. 😀

1. Obviously the party suffered heavily as a result of their part in the coalition. A large part of this was because of the nature of the agreement that they struck up - a looser arrangement would not have forced them to agree to a hostile environment etc. If they were power brokers next time, I doubt that they would have a formal coalition with either party. 

2. In the event of being power brokers, the LibDems would face a dilemma. They are ideologically much closer to the right of the Tory party than they are to Labour party - Davey is an Orange Book liberal. They are also more likely to pick the majority of their gains from the Conservative party rather than from the Labour party. Herein lies their dilemma: ideologically closer to the Tories with most of their gained seats coming from disillusioned Tory voters* both of which would make it very difficult for them to support a Labour govt committed to social justice. So what would they do?

* Contrary to some on this thread, I am not convinced that a change of leader won't see many of these return. Hence my view that it is was disappointing night for those wanting to see a Labour govt.

Badger, I don't know but ideologically much closer to the Hard Brexit and Thatcherite free-market nutters who currently control the Tory party than to a Starmer-led Labour party?

I think it would be impossible for Davey to argue that the LibDems should keep the Tories in power after what would be 13 or 14 years even if they had been reasonably successful years, as opposed to the reality of more than a decade of calamitous incompetence and crookery.

[Van wink 2,994]

1 hour ago, ricardo said:

200 quid for 30 people indicates it was a bit down market.

Or were the drinks extra.

Needs to be careful eating cheap curry, he might end up with the Trots😉

[Herman 9,926]

Curry for £6 a head?! 🤢

[Van wink 2,994]

2 minutes ago, Herman said:

Curry for £6 a head?! 🤢

Donkey 

[Badger 2,421]

21 hours ago, BigFish said:

Not really certain this stacks up. LibDems have always been able to play to the left of of Tories and the right of Labour. But they are socially liberal, which stands in stark contract to Johnson's Blukip wing vote. They will be fishing in the floating vote cohort-younger, more educated. Where famously "LibDems winning here" claims stack up they will get support from Greens and Labour voters

I would agree that there is a difference between the LDs and the Blukip element of the Tories on social liberalism.

There are, however, plenty of social liberals in the Tory party and if the leadership changed, there would be many others who would be happy to vote along socially liberal lines, even they didn't approve. TBF to Cameron, his biggest, perhaps only, achievement, was the passing of Gay Marriage legislation.

[Badger 2,421]

20 hours ago, king canary said:

As the old notions of right and left have fallen apart the Lib Dems have actually done a solid job of establishing who they are for. Socially on the left, economically more on the right. Fundamentally the lib dems are the party of the suburban Liberal, someone who earns north of £50k, has a kid at uni and would attend a BLM protest but isn't keen to raise the top rate of tax.

I don't disagree with much of this but would quibble with the definition of the LDs being on the "left" on social issues. The LDs are liberal on social issues not "left wing." I recognise that much of the media portrays social liberalism as "left," but this is something that has crept in from the media from the US - it is really an attempt to be pejorative - i.e. it's "left" there "bad."

The reality is the other way: the left have adopted social liberalism and the right of the individual to act as she wants. This is very much in ideological model of liberalism - anti-state, pro individuals. The "left" traditionally comes from a different ideological background - which can crudely be described as "collectivist" rather than individualistic. Of course, many voters that used to vote Labour in the heyday of the two-party system in the 50s and 60s, we socially, very conservative.

Similarly, the Tories and most of the right have adopted liberal ideas on the economy certainly since the days of Margaret Thatcher, although the origins of this within the Tory party are much deeper. However, there had always been a very strong non liberal element in the Tory party, prior to Thatcher, which you can chart from the Corn Laws (and their repeal which split the Tory party), Imperial preference and the adoption of the Welfare State after the Second World War. Even today, most Tories adhere to the NHS, whilst on the other hand the Lib Dems proposed a social insurance model of healthcare in the Orange Book.

 

[Badger 2,421]

22 hours ago, horsefly said:

We are definitely going to disagree on this and only future events will determine who is right in the event of a hung parliament. I simply don't see the Libs ever being foolish enough to repeat the massive self-destructive mistake of enabling another Tory government. Bear in mind too that this Tory government and party is much further to the right than Cameron's. 

Economically this govt much further to the left and would have been more so if Sunak had not held out against Johnson who wanted much more investment. Socially they are more conservative (although Johnson was pretty liberal prior to this and still talks a pretty good libertarian game.)

I don't know what the Lib Dems would do in the face of an election result similar to 2010 - Tories 307 seats; Labour 258. Do you think that they would join a three-way coalition with the Scot Nats, who might demand a referendum (depending on how they did in the popular vote etc) and Labour govt committed to govt action to ensure redistribution of wealth, which goes against some of their core beliefs and would be very unpopular with some of those that had voted for them? We both know that they would be attacked mercilessly by the press as enabling a "disastrous socialist govt." Would they be any more popular in 5 years time in these circumstances?

Or would they force another election which may well see a polarisation of votes, squeezing them? What actions do you think that they would take? 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Badger
Added sentence

[horsefly 4,372]

4 minutes ago, Badger said:

Economically this govt much further to the left and would have been more so if Sunak had not held out against Johnson who wanted much more investment.

They had no choice but to provide economic support through the Covid period. They have reiterated time and again that they are committed to tax-cutting policies, and that current economic policy has been dictated by circumstances beyond their control. It also needs to be remembered that Johnson has always flirted with grand projects to pump up his ego (the £52m garden bridge that never got built, the bridge to Ireland etc, etc), however he is an exception to the rule in a party that has culled its more interventionist members and is now dominated by extreme economic right-wingers. The Liberals on the other hand have consistently called for tax rises to fund social policies.

13 minutes ago, Badger said:

I don't know what the Lib Dems would do in the face of an election result similar to 2010 - Tories 307 seats; Labour 258. Do you think that they would join a three-way coalition with the Scot Nats, who might demand a referendum (depending on how they did in the popular vote etc) and Labour govt committed to govt action to ensure redistribution of wealth, which goes against some of their core beliefs and would be very unpopular with some of those that had voted for them? Or would they force another election which may well see a polarisation of votes, squeezing them? What actions do you think that they would take? 

The only thing I feel confident of is that they wouldn't dream of propping up another Tory government. If, as seems increasingly likely, the Tories lose their 80 seat majority at the next GE it would be a very clear demonstration that the public have seriously lost faith in Tory rule. After the last experience of coalition that nearly killed off the Libs it would definitely be suicidal to prop up an unpopular government that has spent 12-years in power achieving nothing that might be described as even remotely coming close to a Lib policy or aim.

[BigFish 2,004]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

Economically this govt much further to the left and would have been more so if Sunak had not held out against Johnson who wanted much more investment. Socially they are more conservative (although Johnson was pretty liberal prior to this and still talks a pretty good libertarian game.)

I don't know what the Lib Dems would do in the face of an election result similar to 2010 - Tories 307 seats; Labour 258. Do you think that they would join a three-way coalition with the Scot Nats, who might demand a referendum (depending on how they did in the popular vote etc) and Labour govt committed to govt action to ensure redistribution of wealth, which goes against some of their core beliefs and would be very unpopular with some of those that had voted for them? We both know that they would be attacked mercilessly by the press as enabling a "disastrous socialist govt." Would they be any more popular in 5 years time in these circumstances?

Or would they force another election which may well see a polarisation of votes, squeezing them? What actions do you think that they would take? 

2010 was a lifetime ago (as is 2004 when the Orange Book you are so vexed by was written). That result is no longer possible. For me that was the last of the post-Thatcher/neo-liberal elections. Nationalism, Brexitism, Climate Crisis, identity politics, the banking crisis & Covid have destroyed that landscape.

The lesson the LibDems have taken to heart is that under no circumstances enter a coalition in a FPP system. There can also be no coalition between Nationlist SNP and Unionist Labour. However, there is a window for a confidence and supply arrangement and a minority Labour government. There is no similar window for the Tories, it is win a majority or bust

[Yellow Fever 3,886]

50 minutes ago, BigFish said:

2010 was a lifetime ago (as is 2004 when the Orange Book you are so vexed by was written). That result is no longer possible. For me that was the last of the post-Thatcher/neo-liberal elections. Nationalism, Brexitism, Climate Crisis, identity politics, the banking crisis & Covid have destroyed that landscape.

The lesson the LibDems have taken to heart is that under no circumstances enter a coalition in a FPP system. There can also be no coalition between Nationlist SNP and Unionist Labour. However, there is a window for a confidence and supply arrangement and a minority Labour government. There is no similar window for the Tories, it is win a majority or bust

More to the point I suspect any LD 'confidence & supply' will include a nailed on change away from FPTP (with no govt. undermining allowed as in 2011). Equally the SNP will demand a referendum (and even SF !)

I might then suggest that if the Tories don't win next time they'll never win again in any proportional system in their present form.