BOTH main political parties are a disgrace

[Aggy 766]

On 12/08/2023 at 10:31, Nuff Said said:

I think I’ve posted this before, and apologies for the length, but that is kind of the point. 
 

What did Blair ever do for us?
Nothing.
Apart from…

National Minimum Wage 
Low Pay Commission 
Human Rights Act 
More than doubled the number of apprenticeships
Tripled NHS spending 
4 new medical schools 
42,400 extra teachers 
212,000 more support staff 
Scrapped section 28

But apart from that… nothing.. 
except…

Civil partnerships 
Doubled overseas aid 
Sure Start 
Lifted 900,000 pensioners out of poverty 
Good Friday Agreement 
Tax credits 
Equality and Human Rights Commission 
Number of people waiting 6 months for an operation reduced from 284,000 to almost zero.
44,000 more doctors 
89,000 more nurses

Yeah well all that for sure, but what else?

Free eye tests for over 60s 
16,000 more police officers 
Extended the opening hours of over 75% of GP practices 
Free Prescriptions for cancer patients 
Free part-time nursery place for every three & four year-old 
Freedom of Information
Paid annual leave to 28 days per year 
Removed almost all hereditary peers 
Paternity leave doubled 
Doubled the spend per pupil in schools

And…?

Increased the value of child benefit by over 26% 
Food Standards Agency 
Equalities Act 
Increased university places 
Restored democracy to Sierra Leone 
Crossrail 
Rural development programme 
Education Maintenance Allowance 
Free bus passes for over 60s 
Devolution to Scotland, Wales & London

And then what?

Banned cluster bombs 
£20 billion improvements to social housing 
Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s 
Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 
Cancer deaths down by 50,000 
Removed the minimum donations limit from gift aid 
Reduced NHS waiting lists by over 500,000 
NHS waiting times fell to a maximum of 18 weeks (lowest ever levels)
Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75% 
Doubled the number of registered childcare spaces

But apart from that?

Disability Rights Commission 
Free school milk & fruit 
Raised legal age of buying cigarettes to 18 
Banned tobacco advertising in magazines newspapers and billboards 
Free entry to galleries and museums 
Giving 18 year olds right to stand for election 
National Coroners Service 
Autism Act 
£2 billion New Deal for Communities Programme 
Electoral Commission

What else though?

Halved the number of our nuclear weapons 
Free TV licences for over 75s 
EU Social Chapter 
Free breast cancer screening 
Record low A&E waiting times 
Reintroduced hospital matrons 
Hunting Act 
Banned testing of cosmetics on animals 
Created Department of International Development 
Reduced class sizes.

But apart from all that stuff what did Blair ever do for us?

93,000 more 11-year-olds achieving numeracy each year 
10 years of continuous economic growth 
NHS Direct 
Healthier school meals 
Access to life saving drugs for HIV and AIDS 
Equalised age of consent 
Smoking ban 
Crime down 45% since 1995. 
Wrote off 100% of debt owed by the poorest countries.

 

Nuff said.

“But he didn’t get us back our blue passports…”

[Nuff Said 5,176]

32 minutes ago, Aggy said:

“But he didn’t get us back our blue passports…”

 

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

9 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

 

I suppose cannibalism of some in the Cabinet would be similar in terms of taste, right?

[nevermind, neoliberalism has had it 159]

On 13/08/2023 at 11:24, Aggy said:

“But he didn’t get us back our blue passports…”

you forgot his excellent and murderous record in Iraq. 

his marvelous disappearing trick for clause 4

and his lying to Parliament about WMD's in Iraq.

his self serving use of privileged information to gather money from countries for speaking with a forked tongue. mere millions.

his love affair with warmongers such as the Bush dynasty, people like John Bolton, Richard Perle and Bill Kristol

the creation of a Tory twitter party with the aim to destroy the lat vestiges of socialism, that rarely mentioned word today

the hounding of the largest political party in Europe under Corbyn, by backstabbing  and sacking and via the creation of a false narrative called anti semitism for all who dared to make policies for the future and for people.

what a boy that' Miranda' was as a young lawyer, so adored by his fellow men and women of the Bar.

[Rock The Boat 1,332]

On 02/08/2023 at 08:06, Pugin said:

I am sure there are many good and totally honest people in local politics. But higher up the ladder the super-rich, public school ethos reigns supreme. 

Sunak is a completely busted flush in my mind due to the cheap, scandalous, focus-group led comments attempting to capiltalise on the reluctance of suburbanites to accept ULEZ. He is putting self-interest above the world's interests.

Starmer's non-response is almost as reprehensible as he missed the opportunity to shout from the rooftops that Climate Change is not a party political issue and should not be used to score points.

Now, and not until now, they both disgust me.

 

It's the people at local level, the ones you say are good and totally honest, that have led the campaign against ULEZ. If ULEZ was introduced to Norwich it wouldn't be a few suburbanites that would suffer, the whole of the county would be negatively impacted.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

There seems to be some degree of resistance to ULEZ expansion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66535086

[Barbe bleu 832]

On 19/08/2023 at 22:26, littleyellowbirdie said:

There seems to be some degree of resistance to ULEZ expansion.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-66535086

And some dodgy dealings when trying to justify it

BBC News - Ulez: London Mayor accused of 'quashing research' questioning the scheme
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-66570024

@dylanisabaddog this report quotes the Imperial college study I referred to before.  That study found that the inner London expansion (ie the expansion that happened 2 years ago) had minimal effect on air quality.    If it made very little difference in congested inner London when the average car was dirtier why would it make much difference in less dense outer London two years later?

And that's before we think about the differences in public transport between inner and outer London.

The deputy mayor saw the research and didn't like it so asked for favours. When she didn't like the favour it seems she deliberately misquoted it.

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

On 19/08/2023 at 22:07, Rock The Boat said:

It's the people at local level, the ones you say are good and totally honest, that have led the campaign against ULEZ. If ULEZ was introduced to Norwich it wouldn't be a few suburbanites that would suffer, the whole of the county would be negatively impacted.

The whole of the county? The majority of petrol cars manufactured after 2005 are ULEZ compliant. 

[Barbe bleu 832]

9 hours ago, dylanisabaddog said:

The whole of the county? The majority of petrol cars manufactured after 2005 are ULEZ compliant. 

That's alright then.  The poor can pay so the rich can have air that is a teensy weeny bit cleaner. Sounds fair.

[dylanisabaddog 4,987]

5 minutes ago, Barbe bleu said:

That's alright then.  The poor can pay so the rich can have air that is a teensy weeny bit cleaner. Sounds fair.

What? Any petrol car registered since 2005! That's 18 years ago. The only people affected probably drive a Range Rover 

[Badger 2,412]

On 12/08/2023 at 10:31, Nuff Said said:

I think I’ve posted this before, and apologies for the length, but that is kind of the point. 
 

What did Blair ever do for us?
Nothing.
Apart from…

National Minimum Wage 
Low Pay Commission 
Human Rights Act 
More than doubled the number of apprenticeships
Tripled NHS spending 
4 new medical schools 
42,400 extra teachers 
212,000 more support staff 
Scrapped section 28

But apart from that… nothing.. 
except…

Civil partnerships 
Doubled overseas aid 
Sure Start 
Lifted 900,000 pensioners out of poverty 
Good Friday Agreement 
Tax credits 
Equality and Human Rights Commission 
Number of people waiting 6 months for an operation reduced from 284,000 to almost zero.
44,000 more doctors 
89,000 more nurses

Yeah well all that for sure, but what else?

Free eye tests for over 60s 
16,000 more police officers 
Extended the opening hours of over 75% of GP practices 
Free Prescriptions for cancer patients 
Free part-time nursery place for every three & four year-old 
Freedom of Information
Paid annual leave to 28 days per year 
Removed almost all hereditary peers 
Paternity leave doubled 
Doubled the spend per pupil in schools

And…?

Increased the value of child benefit by over 26% 
Food Standards Agency 
Equalities Act 
Increased university places 
Restored democracy to Sierra Leone 
Crossrail 
Rural development programme 
Education Maintenance Allowance 
Free bus passes for over 60s 
Devolution to Scotland, Wales & London

And then what?

Banned cluster bombs 
£20 billion improvements to social housing 
Longest period of sustained low inflation since the 1960s 
Heart disease deaths down by 150,000 
Cancer deaths down by 50,000 
Removed the minimum donations limit from gift aid 
Reduced NHS waiting lists by over 500,000 
NHS waiting times fell to a maximum of 18 weeks (lowest ever levels)
Cut long-term youth unemployment by 75% 
Doubled the number of registered childcare spaces

But apart from that?

Disability Rights Commission 
Free school milk & fruit 
Raised legal age of buying cigarettes to 18 
Banned tobacco advertising in magazines newspapers and billboards 
Free entry to galleries and museums 
Giving 18 year olds right to stand for election 
National Coroners Service 
Autism Act 
£2 billion New Deal for Communities Programme 
Electoral Commission

What else though?

Halved the number of our nuclear weapons 
Free TV licences for over 75s 
EU Social Chapter 
Free breast cancer screening 
Record low A&E waiting times 
Reintroduced hospital matrons 
Hunting Act 
Banned testing of cosmetics on animals 
Created Department of International Development 
Reduced class sizes.

But apart from all that stuff what did Blair ever do for us?

93,000 more 11-year-olds achieving numeracy each year 
10 years of continuous economic growth 
NHS Direct 
Healthier school meals 
Access to life saving drugs for HIV and AIDS 
Equalised age of consent 
Smoking ban 
Crime down 45% since 1995. 
Wrote off 100% of debt owed by the poorest countries.

 

Nuff said.

I'm often critical of Blair, but it makes you aware of what we missed under the Tories and Lib Dems (never forget the enablers)!

Thanks.

[Badger 2,412]

On 17/08/2023 at 11:50, nevermind, neoliberalism has had it said:

you forgot his excellent and murderous record in Iraq. 

his marvelous disappearing trick for clause 4

and his lying to Parliament about WMD's in Iraq.

his self serving use of privileged information to gather money from countries for speaking with a forked tongue. mere millions.

his love affair with warmongers such as the Bush dynasty, people like John Bolton, Richard Perle and Bill Kristol

the creation of a Tory twitter party with the aim to destroy the lat vestiges of socialism, that rarely mentioned word today

the hounding of the largest political party in Europe under Corbyn, by backstabbing  and sacking and via the creation of a false narrative called anti semitism for all who dared to make policies for the future and for people.

what a boy that' Miranda' was as a young lawyer, so adored by his fellow men and women of the Bar.

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.

[Barbe bleu 832]

8 minutes ago, dylanisabaddog said:

What? Any petrol car registered since 2005! That's 18 years ago. The only people affected probably drive a Range Rover 

Bit more recent for a diesel of the type people were actively encouraged to buy.

Isn't that just proving the point though? The policy doesn't take many cars off the road so doesn't do much at all to reduce pollution (the point imperial college- a top 10 in the world university- made very clearly)  but it does have a huge impact on those who can afford nothing but an 18 year old car or van. 

What's with the range rover thing? are all old cars range rivers kept on the road by eccentric millionaires?

 

 

 

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

15 minutes ago, Badger said:

I'm often critical of Blair, but it makes you aware of what we missed under the Tories and Lib Dems (never forget the enablers)!

Thanks.

The list forgot Labour's original creation of tuition fees and two occasions where they increased them, every time betraying manifesto pledges. But Labour supporters readily gloss over that while having a go at the Lib Dems.

Privatisation of air traffic control, creation of NHS markets. All good because it's Labour doing it.

And glossing over the explosion of personal debt in the UK that fuelled UK growth between 1997 and 2008, making the suffering all the worse when it blew up in 2008.

And never forget how the Conservatives are ultimately best enabled by the electoral system Labour endorse hand in hand with the Conservatives.

Hypocrites.

Edited August 22, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Nuff Said 5,176]

1 hour ago, Barbe bleu said:

Bit more recent for a diesel of the type people were actively encouraged to buy.

Isn't that just proving the point though? The policy doesn't take many cars off the road so doesn't do much at all to reduce pollution (the point imperial college- a top 10 in the world university- made very clearly)  but it does have a huge impact on those who can afford nothing but an 18 year old car or van. 

What's with the range rover thing? are all old cars range rivers kept on the road by eccentric millionaires?

 

 

 

Could you expand on this socialist “cars for all” policy you seem to be promoting? In a society like ours where some things will always be out of reach to those who can’t afford them, some people of low income won’t be able to afford to run a car. That in part is why we have public transport. You (and those on low incomes) would be better off focusing your attention on why the public transport system has fallen so far under the Tories.

[Barbe bleu 832]

27 minutes ago, Nuff Said said:

Could you expand on this socialist “cars for all” policy you seem to be promoting? In a society like ours where some things will always be out of reach to those who can’t afford them, some people of low income won’t be able to afford to run a car. That in part is why we have public transport. You (and those on low incomes) would be better off focusing your attention on why the public transport system has fallen so far under the Tories.

Can you expand on this right wing "only the rich should have cars" policy of yours?

In a society like ours where some things are out of reach to those who can't afford them we should be striving to reduce inequality and try to make sure that everyone has the the most opportunities possible.  Public transport is a must be but we must also recognise that universal public transport outside of city centres can never be more than a pipe dream . 

Regressive taxes that target the poor and leave the rich alone are not the answer, particularly if they dont actually solve the problem they purport to address.

[Badger 2,412]

14 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

The list forgot Labour's original creation of tuition fees and two occasions where they increased them, every time betraying manifesto pledges. But Labour supporters readily gloss over that while having a go at the Lib Dems.

Privatisation of air traffic control, creation of NHS markets. All good because it's Labour doing it.

And glossing over the explosion of personal debt in the UK that fuelled UK growth between 1997 and 2008, making the suffering all the worse when it blew up in 2008.

And never forget how the Conservatives are ultimately best enabled by the electoral system Labour endorse hand in hand with the Conservatives.

Hypocrites.

I certainly agree with you re tuition fees (although much, much lower than the levels implemented by the Tories and Lib Dems), and NHS markets + I would challenge some of the PFI deals as well.

I disagree with you about the electoral system though - I think a lot of people voted against PR to prevent a permanent Tory/ Lib Dem hegemony which is ideologically the most likely long term outcome of PR (although this isn't necessarily an argument against it). 

Nuff Said produced a long list of the positive side of the balance sheet of the last Labour government but you and Nevermind have raised good point son the negative side of the balance sheet.

 

I'm not sure what positives we could put on the balance sheet since 2010?

[Badger 2,412]

12 hours ago, Barbe bleu said:

Can you expand on this right wing "only the rich should have cars" policy of yours?

In a society like ours where some things are out of reach to those who can't afford them we should be striving to reduce inequality and try to make sure that everyone has the the most opportunities possible.  Public transport is a must be but we must also recognise that universal public transport outside of city centres can never be more than a pipe dream . 

Regressive taxes that target the poor and leave the rich alone are not the answer, particularly if they dont actually solve the problem they purport to address.

Whilst I agree with the aims of ULEZ and am naturally sympathetic to it, I agree that it is deeply regressive and flawed scheme which i fear damages the aims that it seeks to achieve. You can't make the poor bear a disproportionate element of the "greening" of the economy.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

37 minutes ago, Badger said:

I certainly agree with you re tuition fees (although much, much lower than the levels implemented by the Tories and Lib Dems), and NHS markets + I would challenge some of the PFI deals as well.

I disagree with you about the electoral system though - I think a lot of people voted against PR to prevent a permanent Tory/ Lib Dem hegemony which is ideologically the most likely long term outcome of PR (although this isn't necessarily an argument against it). 

Nuff Said produced a long list of the positive side of the balance sheet of the last Labour government but you and Nevermind have raised good point son the negative side of the balance sheet.

 

I'm not sure what positives we could put on the balance sheet since 2010?

Lib Dem contributions from 2010 to 2015.

First net  increase in social housing stock in 30 years; 70,000 empty homes bought back into use
Over 3 million of lowest earners lifted out of income tax
Reduced tax breaks for the richest
Creation of the Green Investment bank
2 million apprenticeships, up 78% on under Labour
Pupil premium giving schools extra money to help the most disadvantaged children; £1320 for eligible primary school children and £935 pa for eligible secondary school children
State pension linked with earnings and introduction of triple lock
Reform of banking with separation of retail and casino banking
Scrapping Labour moves attacking privacy of British citizens to monitor internet and social media use, mandatory ID scheme, stopping storing of DNA of innocent people, extended jury use, stopped routine detention of children in immigration cases (which had been happening under Labour) cutting maximum detention without trial to 14 days from Labour’s 28 days,
Post office protection: 7000 post offices closed under Labour, intrdoduction of employee share ownership and mutualisation in post offices
Same-sex marriage (lib-dem manifesto commitment, NOT  a Conservative one)
Shared parental leave and free childcare for all 3 and 4 year olds.

Final fun fact: The total austerity cuts of the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition was smaller than those proposed in the 2010 Labour manifesto, raising the question what the hell Labour were planning to cut given they protested everything under the sun.

As to Lib Dem Conservative hegemony under PR, that's a nonsense notion. Only reason it wasn't a Labour/Lib Dem coalition was it was mathematically impossible based on those election results. Ideologically, the Lib Dems are in a similar ball park to new Labour (although ironically the Lib Dems were there first), but more socially liberal.

If Lib Dems overtook Labour as second largest party, then inevitably you'd have a new paradigm of the Conservatives and Lib Dems competing against each other to win support of smaller parties to more closely follow their agenda; the biggest parties rarely play nicely with each other under any system, except in time s of national emergency, or specifically for fighting against electoral reform in the case of Labour and the Conservatives.

Anyway, think it's more likely the Greens would overtake Labour as second largest  party under PR.

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

28 minutes ago, Badger said:

I certainly agree with you re tuition fees (although much, much lower than the levels implemented by the Tories and Lib Dems), and NHS markets + I would challenge some of the PFI deals as well.

I disagree with you about the electoral system though - I think a lot of people voted against PR to prevent a permanent Tory/ Lib Dem hegemony which is ideologically the most likely long term outcome of PR (although this isn't necessarily an argument against it). 

Nuff Said produced a long list of the positive side of the balance sheet of the last Labour government but you and Nevermind have raised good point son the negative side of the balance sheet.

 

I'm not sure what positives we could put on the balance sheet since 2010?

When did people get a chance to vote against PR? We had the AV referendum, but that was merely between FPTP and AV. Distinctly remember even then that many thought PR should have been on the table.

[Badger 2,412]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

Lib Dem contributions from 2010 to 2015.

 

The LDs in 2010 were a very different animal to the party of Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown (or going back further David Steel) and it will take a long, long while for many progressives to trust them again. The long list of things that happened during the coalition years were not all the responsibility of the LDs, and in any case are grossly outweighed by the terrible things. 

e.g. You suggest same sex marriage as a LD achievement but five times more Labour MPs voted for it than Lib Dems - the bill would not have passed without the Labour Party - the LD votes were immaterial  (c10% of their MPs voted against anyway) as Lab + Tory votes would have passed it.

In other places you claim LD credit for Tory ideas, which are pretty poor - e.g. "the triple lock" which just facilitates a further transfer of wealth to the older sections of society away from the younger sections. If the LDs and labour had any "guts" they would abandon this pledge but my guess is that it is too sensitive this side of an election.

The "fun fact" you present is the key ne for me, which highlights the complicity of the LDs in the ruinous damage to the economy with the austerity cuts from which the economy has still to recover. As almost every sensible economist in the world has known since the 1930s, you do not help the economy by cutting expenditure during times of weakness - all it does is act on a brake to growth. The sensible way to reduce the deficit was not through cuts but by not increasing expenditure as quickly as GDP rose when the economy recovered. Unfortunately for the UK, however, there was ideological agreement between the Tories and the Lib Dem right which had taken control of the party (and is still very influential) - remember Clegg's enthusiasm for "Gladstonian Liberalism". My Lib Dem friends tend to go very quiet when I raise the matter of the Orange book!

The ideological consensus between the Tory right and the liberal elements of the LDs is always likely to be of concern for progressive voters.  Whilst I accept that PR is likely to lead to a restructuring of the party system over time the timing of the AV vote was not helpful as it reminded voters of what a Tory/ Liberal hegemony could look like. As someone who has previously "lent" my vote to the LDs it was also a reminder of the undemocratic element of PR - i.e. the decision on who forms a govt is taken out of the hands of the electorate and decided in back room deals in Whitehall.

[Badger 2,412]

1 hour ago, TheGunnShow said:

When did people get a chance to vote against PR? We had the AV referendum, but that was merely between FPTP and AV. Distinctly remember even then that many thought PR should have been on the table.

You are quite right, AV is not fully proportional - I don't think that it would have affected the outcome though: the fear of a permanent Tory Lib Dem coalition meant that the vote was bound to fail.

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

26 minutes ago, Badger said:

The LDs in 2010 were a very different animal to the party of Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown (or going back further David Steel) and it will take a long, long while for many progressives to trust them again. The long list of things that happened during the coalition years were not all the responsibility of the LDs, and in any case are grossly outweighed by the terrible things. 

e.g. You suggest same sex marriage as a LD achievement but five times more Labour MPs voted for it than Lib Dems - the bill would not have passed without the Labour Party - the LD votes were immaterial  (c10% of their MPs voted against anyway) as Lab + Tory votes would have passed it.

In other places you claim LD credit for Tory ideas, which are pretty poor - e.g. "the triple lock" which just facilitates a further transfer of wealth to the older sections of society away from the younger sections. If the LDs and labour had any "guts" they would abandon this pledge but my guess is that it is too sensitive this side of an election.

The "fun fact" you present is the key ne for me, which highlights the complicity of the LDs in the ruinous damage to the economy with the austerity cuts from which the economy has still to recover. As almost every sensible economist in the world has known since the 1930s, you do not help the economy by cutting expenditure during times of weakness - all it does is act on a brake to growth. The sensible way to reduce the deficit was not through cuts but by not increasing expenditure as quickly as GDP rose when the economy recovered. Unfortunately for the UK, however, there was ideological agreement between the Tories and the Lib Dem right which had taken control of the party (and is still very influential) - remember Clegg's enthusiasm for "Gladstonian Liberalism". My Lib Dem friends tend to go very quiet when I raise the matter of the Orange book!

The ideological consensus between the Tory right and the liberal elements of the LDs is always likely to be of concern for progressive voters.  Whilst I accept that PR is likely to lead to a restructuring of the party system over time the timing of the AV vote was not helpful as it reminded voters of what a Tory/ Liberal hegemony could look like. As someone who has previously "lent" my vote to the LDs it was also a reminder of the undemocratic element of PR - i.e. the decision on who forms a govt is taken out of the hands of the electorate and decided in back room deals in Whitehall.

There is very little ideological consensus between the Conservatives and Lib Dems, definitely no more than there is between the Conservatives and Labour.

How can you possibly be critical of the Orange book and be supportive of Labour's last 13 years of government, which featured:

-More privatisation

-Growth in personal debt

-More bank mergers

-Liberalisation of gambling and the commensurate growth in gambling-related suicide

The only thing Labour has going for it is it's not the Conservatives, which is why they promote an electoral system that ensures people don't have any realistic further choice and rely on saying as little as possible to get into power.

Realistically, the next Labour government, if it's a majority, is just going to be a repeat of New Labour.

Look at the positive Brexit thread: Supposedly such a big deal, but neither main party is offering anything on that score. Under PR, the Hermans of the world who apparently think EU membership is more important than anything else could vote for a sngle issue pro-EU party and know it would count. All Herman can do at the moment is vote Labour and hope Labour goes in his direction; there's very little indication of that happening.

 

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[Yellow Fever 3,829]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

The LDs in 2010 were a very different animal to the party of Charles Kennedy and Paddy Ashdown (or going back further David Steel) and it will take a long, long while for many progressives to trust them again. The long list of things that happened during the coalition years were not all the responsibility of the LDs, and in any case are grossly outweighed by the terrible things. 

e.g. You suggest same sex marriage as a LD achievement but five times more Labour MPs voted for it than Lib Dems - the bill would not have passed without the Labour Party - the LD votes were immaterial  (c10% of their MPs voted against anyway) as Lab + Tory votes would have passed it.

In other places you claim LD credit for Tory ideas, which are pretty poor - e.g. "the triple lock" which just facilitates a further transfer of wealth to the older sections of society away from the younger sections. If the LDs and labour had any "guts" they would abandon this pledge but my guess is that it is too sensitive this side of an election.

The "fun fact" you present is the key ne for me, which highlights the complicity of the LDs in the ruinous damage to the economy with the austerity cuts from which the economy has still to recover. As almost every sensible economist in the world has known since the 1930s, you do not help the economy by cutting expenditure during times of weakness - all it does is act on a brake to growth. The sensible way to reduce the deficit was not through cuts but by not increasing expenditure as quickly as GDP rose when the economy recovered. Unfortunately for the UK, however, there was ideological agreement between the Tories and the Lib Dem right which had taken control of the party (and is still very influential) - remember Clegg's enthusiasm for "Gladstonian Liberalism". My Lib Dem friends tend to go very quiet when I raise the matter of the Orange book!

The ideological consensus between the Tory right and the liberal elements of the LDs is always likely to be of concern for progressive voters.  Whilst I accept that PR is likely to lead to a restructuring of the party system over time the timing of the AV vote was not helpful as it reminded voters of what a Tory/ Liberal hegemony could look like. As someone who has previously "lent" my vote to the LDs it was also a reminder of the undemocratic element of PR - i.e. the decision on who forms a govt is taken out of the hands of the electorate and decided in back room deals in Whitehall.

Well I can agree with most of that although I think PR would not in fact produce a LD / Tory hegemony (more likely centre left one) but in any event it would more realistically reflect the totality of views of the electorate. All systems though have 'back room deals in Whitehall' both inside and outside parties - that's how you form a (representative) government! This parliament is evidence of that with FPTP as was the coalition. Pot kettle black!

Thanks for also for confirming that you 'lent' your vote to the LDs away from your natural Tory home to which you've now returned. That's been obvious in your continued 'Tory HQ' sanctioned attacks on Labour - which has degraded to 'if you think we're bad wait until you see Labour...). It smacks of desperation singing to the converted only as SKS and Labour are clearly competent by comparison and can't be goaded into mistakes unlike the last remaining rags of the Tory party and their playground 'culture' war cat calls.

Edited August 23, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[Badger 2,412]

1 hour ago, littleyellowbirdie said:

How can you possibly be critical of the Orange book and be supportive of Labour's last 13 years of government, which featured:

As I said in my original post on the matter, I am often critical of Blair and wouldn't class myself as a supporter of the "last 13 years of Labour govt". I do think however, that Nuff Said pointed out a long list of achievements to which sometimes I fail to give sufficient credit. There were certainly many failures - Iraq and NHS privatisation being two of the biggest and I moaned about them at the time and subsequently.

However, the years 1997 to 2010 look like paradise to the Tory/ Lib Dem years. I don't know how you can claim that there is no ideological consensus between the Tories and Liberals (I suspect the old SDs within the party are less comfortable). Have you read the Orange Book? Don't you recall Clegg eulogizing Gladstonian liberalism?

I cannot vote for Starmer with any enthusiasm and if I was to follow my heart would probably vote Green but top priority is to remove the Tories which like it or not, the Lib Dems put into power. The people of the country would have been indescribably better off imo, if Clegg hadn't made this disastrous decision - predictably leading to all the disasters that have followed.

[Badger 2,412]

2 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

Well I can agree with most of that although I think PR would not in fact produce a LD / Tory hegemony (more likely centre left one) but in any event it would more realistically reflect the totality of views of the electorate. All systems though have 'back room deals in Whitehall' both inside and outside parties - that's how you form a (representative) government! This parliament is evidence of that with FPTP as was the coalition. Pot kettle black!

Thanks for also for confirming that you 'lent' your vote to the LDs away from your natural Tory home to which you've now returned. That's been obvious in your continued 'Tory HQ' sanctioned attacks on Labour - which has degraded to 'if you think we're bad wait until you see Labour...). It smacks of desperation singing to the converted only as SKS and Labour are clearly competent by comparison and can't be goaded into mistakes unlike the last remaining rags of the Tory party and their playground 'culture' war cat calls.

I don't think that you can have read what I said: I have never voted Tory and never would.

I agree that SKS is likely to be more competent than the current administration, it would be almost impossible not to be, but I can't really muster up any enthusiasm for him. Equally I agree that the Tory attacks on him are pathetic - more convincing are the attacks from the centre and the left, but given the desperate need to get rid of the Tories, I don't think its helpful to the primary need. 

We've had 13 years of the Tories facilitated by the Lib Dems - we desperately need change now.

On PR/ AV etc I confess my opinion wavers. I see the faults in all the systems, including FPTP and can't muster any enthusiasm for any atm. I had previously had some sympathy for AV but fear of a permanent Tory/ LD hegemony influenced me. I accept that there are some centre left elements in the LDs, mainly from the old SDs, but judging by what they did, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the ideological liberals dominate the party and they have strong right wing sympathies.

[TheGunnShow 5,995]

PR can still provide local representation - Germany and New Zealand run versions where you have two votes. One for a local candidate and one at national level. This rather resolves the problem where you'd like a local candidate even if from a different party, but can still vote at national level for your convictions (or indeed even vice versa).

[Yellow Fever 3,829]

10 minutes ago, Badger said:

I don't think that you can have read what I said: I have never voted Tory and never would.

I agree that SKS is likely to be more competent than the current administration, it would be almost impossible not to be, but I can't really muster up any enthusiasm for him. Equally I agree that the Tory attacks on him are pathetic - more convincing are the attacks from the centre and the left, but given the desperate need to get rid of the Tories, I don't think its helpful to the primary need. 

We've had 13 years of the Tories facilitated by the Lib Dems - we desperately need change now.

On PR/ AV etc I confess my opinion wavers. I see the faults in all the systems, including FPTP and can't muster any enthusiasm for any atm. I had previously had some sympathy for AV but fear of a permanent Tory/ LD hegemony influenced me. I accept that there are some centre left elements in the LDs, mainly from the old SDs, but judging by what they did, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the ideological liberals dominate the party and they have strong right wing sympathies.

Sorry badger - it was for LYB! Silly me doing three things at once - currently on pacific time!

Edited August 23, 2023 by Yellow Fever

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

1 hour ago, Badger said:

I cannot vote for Starmer with any enthusiasm and if I was to follow my heart would probably vote Green but top priority is to remove the Tories which like it or not, the Lib Dems put into power. The people of the country would have been indescribably better off imo, if Clegg hadn't made this disastrous decision - predictably leading to all the disasters that have followed.

The Lib Dem Conservative coalition was five years of government and the Lib Dems made it a lot better than it might have been. But here you are obsessing over five years that represented a real oddity under first past the post. 

From 1979 to 2023 there have been 26 years of Conservative majority government versus 13 years of Labour majority government. None of those years of Conservative majority government or Labour majority government represented a majority of the popular vote. The enabler of those years of Conservative majority government were the Conserivative party and the Labour party together, mutually enabling each other to have absolute power on a minority of votes.

The excessive demonisation of the Lib Dems for five years as a minority party in coalition is just more specious Labour politicking to keep the electoral system as it is: Better to allow the Conservatives to have power most of the time than to give up the chance of having power all to themselves for a lot less of the time.

As for laying what happened after 2015 on the Lib Dems when the Conservatives alone won power, that's just plain absurd. Actually, if Labour had allowed the Lib Dems credit for the good things they did do in coalition,  instead of playing the usual pantomime card, all those yellow seats may well not have gone blue to give the Conservatives their majority.

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.

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie

[littleyellowbirdie 2,594]

1 hour ago, Yellow Fever said:

Well I can agree with most of that although I think PR would not in fact produce a LD / Tory hegemony (more likely centre left one) but in any event it would more realistically reflect the totality of views of the electorate. All systems though have 'back room deals in Whitehall' both inside and outside parties - that's how you form a (representative) government! This parliament is evidence of that with FPTP as was the coalition. Pot kettle black!

Thanks for also for confirming that you 'lent' your vote to the LDs away from your natural Tory home to which you've now returned. That's been obvious in your continued 'Tory HQ' sanctioned attacks on Labour - which has degraded to 'if you think we're bad wait until you see Labour...). It smacks of desperation singing to the converted only as SKS and Labour are clearly competent by comparison and can't be goaded into mistakes unlike the last remaining rags of the Tory party and their playground 'culture' war cat calls.

Just FYI, I haven't returned to my natural Conservative home. Even when I was in the Lib Dems my views still overall fit with the Conservative party. It was always about electoral reform for me. In fact, I lost interest in the Lib Dems when not enough other members showed much interest in campaigning in a more hardline manner for electoral reform. I've become more supportive again as they've got more vocal on the subject.

Even though I'm a Conservative by nature, it's not good for democracy for one party to be dominant all the time as the Conservatives are. That problem's more important to me than tribal instincts. You're right though that I have a bit of tribal loyalty to the Conservatives, but actually, I'm always more inspired to point out the huge and glaring failures of the Labour party when their supporters start bullying the Lib Dems. The way Labour punches down there regarding a party far more ideologically aligned to the Labour party than Labour supporters pretend has been the biggest reason why I regard the party as unpleasant and thuggish.

Also, I gave my vote to the Lib Dems; no party owns my vote (or will do when the legislation kicks in that gives it back to me).

Every real Conservative supporter will be hoping for a Labour majority at the next election; not a hung parliament. A hung parliament would give a chance of actual reform, which is not in the Conservatives' interests.

The best path for electoral reform is to see Labour broken. Only when they're so desperate to have any sort of power that they're willing to reform so that parties have to work together to govern will they countenance reform. I feel that so strongly I wish the SNP well in Scotland at the next election.

Labour are 'Competent by comparison'. Talk about damning with faint praise!

 

Edited August 23, 2023 by littleyellowbirdie