BOTH main political parties are a disgrace

[Badger 2,412]

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Lib Dem Conservative coalition was five years of government and the Lib Dems made it a lot better than it might have been.

1. The LDs had the power to prevent a Tory government at all.

2. Alternatively, they could have let them rule as a minority govt and thereby preventing them from bringing any of the most damaging policies into being.

However, Clegg's ideological and personal preferences meant that he was always going to side with the Tory party and give them the almost unwavering support that allowed the extreme faction time to grow. A sharp does of electoral reality might have calmed the Tory extremists.

3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

You have justified your own voting decision for Labour over the Greens exactly according to why Labour support our electoral system and work with the Conservatives against electoral change. And yet, somehow, you still can't see the wood for the trees in the way.

I think that there is some justification in what you say here. My own view on the electoral system is muddled, I know - nor is it consistent - I have changed my mind several times. I agree with the arguments for and against of both sides and have never managed to reach a convinced position, so yes, I have let short-term considerations be my deciding factor.

I am however, convinced of the need for other constitutional reform, not least an elected House of Lords + different electoral dates for the House similar to the the US Senate, where a third is elected every two years. the two combined would do much to weaken the elective dictatorship that we currently have, arguably more effectively than a PR voting system.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

5 minutes ago, Badger said:

2. Alternatively, they could have let them rule as a minority govt and thereby preventing them from bringing any of the most damaging policies into being.

Minority government would have lasted months followed by another GE, and the only credible outcome of that would be a Conservative majority given how discredited Labour were. There were plenty of policies the Conservatives would have liked to have pursued if they'd got a majority sooner, but which were blocked by the Lib Dems.

In the meantime, UK stock market and sterling would have suffered from the political instability of no functional government at a time when we were still reeling from 2008.

Let's face it, the objection to the Lib Dems going into coalition with the Conservatives is pure pantomime rubbish.

Edited August 23, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Badger 2,412]

1 minute ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Minority government would have lasted months followed by another GE, and the only credible outcome of that would be a Conservative majority given how discredited Labour were.

Not sure I'm confident of either assertion. The Tories were a toxic brand until the LDs cleansed them - even in the face of a global recession + the Iraq war, the people did not have the confidence to vote for a majority Tory govt.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

Just now, Badger said:

Not sure I'm confident of either assertion. The Tories were a toxic brand until the LDs cleansed them - even in the face of a global recession + the Iraq war, the people did not have the confidence to vote for a majority Tory govt.

Of course you wouldn't be, but history shows that minority governments who are close to majority get a majority on a rerun.

The Lib Dems didn't cleanse anybody. Labour cleansed the Conservatives by dumping all their attacks on the Lib Dems.

[Badger 2,412]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Of course you wouldn't be, but history shows that minority governments who are close to majority get a majority on a rerun.

The Lib Dems didn't cleanse anybody. Labour cleansed the Conservatives by dumping all their attacks on the Lib Dems.

I think it's a bit silly to say that Labour dumped ALL their attacks on the LDs - the Tories got the majority of the blame, but the LDs lost far more votes as many of their voters felt betrayed by what they did. Many progressives, like myself, vowed never to vote for them again.

Your majority government point is more complicated but basically overstated and highly debateable.

1. The 1924 minority Labour govt soon lost office and did not gain a main a majority, although tbf, they were 2nd largest party and a long way short of a majority so doesn't fully meet your criteria.

In 1929 the Labour party formed a minority govt as the largest party which collapsed leaving the labour party out of power for 15 years - there was "no majority on a rerun."

The 1974 Labour govt got a tiny majority after a second election in 74, which they lost quite soon afterwards.

The Tories lost their majority in 1996 but hobbled along as a minority govt until they were hammered in 1997.

The biggest point in your favour is the Tory minority of 2017 did turn into a big majority in 2019 - but I would argue that there were special circumstances. Overall, I think that your assertion that a minority Tory govt would inevitably been followed by a majority Tory government to be highly questionable

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

52 minutes ago, Badger said:

 

Your majority government point is more complicated but basically overstated and highly debateable.

 

Really? So what's your opinion about the likelihood of a majority Labour government in a GE a few month after that one?

Edit: It's possible the majority might not have been as big. 2015 was largely down to Labour leaning Lib Dems going to Labour and Conservative leaning lib dems going the other way in reaction. But it doesn't change the fact that beating up on the Lib Dems for daring to be in government at all when the opportunity was there is just nonsense. As I've said many times, a party like Labour that has betrayed so many manifesto commitments in majority government has no business lecturing smaller parties on how they should go about delivering on their objectives.

The big joke is that in 2010, Labour's vote share was 29%, against the Lib Dems' 23%. Maybe if they'd have held off they might have actually overtaken Labour. No wonder Labour were more interested in attacking them than the Tories.

Edited August 23, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Badger 2,412]

12 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Really? So what's your opinion about the likelihood of a majority Labour government in a GE a few month after that one?

I really don't know, nobody does. What I do know is that Cameron was already having lots of difficulty with the "raving right" of his party - a period of minority administration many well have been too much for them - who knows. Instead the LDs made it easy for them.

Edit: It's possible the majority might not have been as big. 2015 was largely down to Labour leaning Lib Dems going to Labour and Conservative leaning lib dems going the other way in reaction. But it doesn't change the fact that beating up on the Lib Dems for daring to be in government at all when the opportunity was there is just nonsense. As I've said many times, a party like Labour that has betrayed so many manifesto commitments in majority government has no business lecturing smaller parties on how they should go about delivering on their objectives.

Labour attacked the LDs and particularly the Tories, who were the main threat to them: they did not attack the LDs alone. As explained before, the LDs lost so heavily because progressives knew that they could no longer trust the LDs with their vote and so they lost the support those who had lent their vote to them. The Tory vote held up because they acted as their voters wanted, the LDs lost so many votes and seats because they betrayed so many of their voters.

The Tories attacked the LDs and Labour; the LDs attacked the Tories and Labour - that's politics.

The big joke is that in 2010, Labour's vote share was 29%, against the Lib Dems' 23%. Maybe if they'd have held off they might have actually overtaken Labour...

Highly unlikely - much of the LD vote is "soft" with Try supporters voting LD to keep keep Labour out in their seat and (until the Coalition) Labour and Green supporters voting LD to keep the Tories out. What has happened since the Coalition is that very few Green/ Lab supporters can bring themselves to vote LD after their right wing leanings became obvious.

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

 

I assure you the amount of attention they paid to the lib Dems from 2010-2015 was extremely high, disproportionately so. Also, even in 2017, Labour was spending advertising money on attacking the Lib Dems, with dedicated pages with sponsored links. The Conservatives won seats the lib Dems were in second place in because of that; Labour activists were crowing to me on Twitter how the lib Dems had come second to the Conservatives in lib dem targets where Labour had invested hugely in campaigns simply out of bloody-mindedness. Utterly stupid.

It's just a lie to call the Lib Dems 'right wing', especially with reference to Labour under Blair, with it's spin doctoring, bullying of the press, illiberal détention laws, anti-union stance, privatisation, gambling libéralisation. Even welfare was pretty right wing, with workfare and tougher eligibility criteria. The fact that Labour supporters believe that really shows up how Labour's core vote will lap up any rubbish without question because of engrained tribalism.

The only areas where you could say it was heading towards progressive was health and education spending, but even then it created the NHS internal markets for privatisation, not to mention the introduction of university tuition fees.

Politics should aspire to something more visionary than 'not as incompetent as the other lot', but that's the best you can hope for with first part the post and these two main parties. You definitely can't realistically hope for your vote to have any meaningful influence on policy direction.

 

Edited August 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

17 hours ago, Badger said:

I am however, convinced of the need for other constitutional reform, not least an elected House of Lords + different electoral dates for the House similar to the the US Senate, where a third is elected every two years. the two combined would do much to weaken the elective dictatorship that we currently have, arguably more effectively than a PR voting system.

Yes. 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

The Lords is subservient to the Commons; it cannot stop legislation. Specifically with regard to Labour proposals, which are uncannily similar to the proposal from badger and endorsed by YF, they intend to keep the Commons as the supreme chamber, which means there will effectively be no impact regarding reforming the Commons, which is crazy given the Commons is the main source of eroding trust in politics under the Conservatives and Labour alike from Iraq onwards; reform that ignores the Commons is akin to shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.

Edited August 24, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,818]

43 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The Lords is subservient to the Commons; it cannot stop legislation. Specifically with regard to Labour proposals, which are uncannily similar to the proposal from badger and endorsed by YF, they intend to keep the Commons as the supreme chamber, which means there will effectively be no impact regarding reforming the Commons, which is crazy given the Commons is the main source of eroding trust in politics under the Conservatives and Labour alike from Iraq onwards; reform that ignores the Commons is akin to shuffling deckchairs on the Titanic.

The Lord's is now shot. Shot finally by Johnson's cronies (let alone Truss's). it needs root and branch reform. I'm actually not opposed to an unelected, technocratic, politically neutral revising chamber of the truly knowledgeable (but no political appointees - ex PM's, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home office SoS only despite the truly unworthy present incumbents). Too many 'Dories' there already!

Failing that - yes elected and regional if need be but in anti-phase to the GE cycle.     

[littleyellowbirdie 2,588]

5 hours ago, Yellow Fever said:

The Lord's is now shot. Shot finally by Johnson's cronies (let alone Truss's). it needs root and branch reform. I'm actually not opposed to an unelected, technocratic, politically neutral revising chamber of the truly knowledgeable (but no political appointees - ex PM's, Chancellor, Foreign Secretary and Home office SoS only despite the truly unworthy present incumbents). Too many 'Dories' there already!

Failing that - yes elected and regional if need be but in anti-phase to the GE cycle.     

It was shot before that. Each party has stacked the lords in its favour when in power.

It misses the point that the commons is still supreme. Elected or not, if the commons doesn't change, nothing else will.

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 22/08/2023 at 18:26, Badger said:

The other side of the argument, with much merit as well, although you can't defend Corbyn over antisemitism.

I often wonder how much truth there was in the so-called "Granita Pact", which basically was supposed to have given Brown control of economic and social policy with Blair in control of foreign affairs.

I suppose you heard of Shai Masot, who undermined political parties in this country and who was behind a lot of the back stabbing against Corbyn.