Lib Dems where 2nd = same as winning and Clegg = lying toad with craven lust for power: discuss

edited September 2012 in General chat
Nick Clegg thinks we are stupid,stupid,stupid<br>


  • I predict a sophisticated discussion of the nuances of representative democracy.<br>
  • Boris is mayor, we said no to a fairer voting system, we ARE stupid.
  • @Arkady ; if only..! that may have to wait till we have a govt. with an actual mandate.<br>
  • @Yagamuffn – quite.<br><br>@Twinspark - The government consists of two parties who together have over 56% of the vote. That’s how pluralist representatives democracies form governments. Technically the coalition has one of the best mandates in the UK ever. Historically most UK governments only represented around 40% of voters, and often less. Your comment would completely bamboozle citizens of most democracies in the world, where governments are formed by coalitions who must reperesent over 50% of voters.<br>
  • @Arkady ; Thanks for clarifying that I was about to ask matron which country I live in.<br>So is this is as good as it gets then? Two non-mandates combined do not make a mandate, both parties in this govt. play fast and loose with their manifesto and their 'coaltion agreement'. It's become their house style to make policy on the hoof and if the level of umbrage is too high use consultation as a control and if that fails they just dump it or effect a u-turn.  Their 56% is a marriage of inconvenience and a dysfunctional failing one at that whilst pluralism in this govt. is merely an incubator for duplicity.  [ A default setting of Libs. who have made 'policy' to catch the eye and ear for almost 5 decades without the worry of troublesome details as they've never had a chance of being elected ]<br>So we all need to pull our socks up then and mobilise the vote to get above the average 40% - hmm who should we have banging the drum for that? - Nick Clegg perhaps as he's in need of a signature cause having wasted or rejected all the others he stole into govt, with.<br>
  • edited September 2012
    Your response implies that I meant 40% of the electorate, rather than 40% of those who vote.  I meant the latter.  It's very unlikely that the fifty-year trend away from the main two parties will reverse; we are becoming a more pluralistic society.    It will become harder and harder for one party to win outright, even with our perverse electoral system.<br><br>We'll probably just have to agree to disagree.  I will never consider a government with less than 50% of the vote to have a mandate - it's contrary to the definition of mandate as I understand it. I would rather be governed by a group of compromising parties (and let's face it, there isn't much between the main three anyway) representing the majority than be dictated to by a minority.  That's the view of most democrats. Sometimes it gives you a result I don't like, as now.  I doubt either of us would be conmplaining so much if it was a Lib-Lab majority.  I suspect your viewpoint is partisan rather than principled.<br>
  • Arkday it's ok I knew what you meant, I got it.   So you think the Libs will grow and remain a main party or other parties could appear on a scale similar to them? Perhaps the Cons. and Lab reduce down to Lib level?    <br><br>No problem with compromise, no problem with democracy - multiple hi-speed u-turns induce mistrust however.  I would rather be governed by Vic & Bob than Flashman, Osborne & Clegg [ this really is no time for novices] The middle ground is overworked by the main three it's true.  However a less than stealthy and retrogressive re-distribution of wealth and opportunity is being put in place - a reversal into tomorrow with Tories at the wheel. It's not enough for Libs to chime ' it's ok we've told them there's another way'.<br> <br>I'm sure you're the only principled democrat in the village - of course you are - and this Tory-led coalition just doesn't have the electorate it deserves and it's all our fault for ruining their policies.<br><br>[Do you like Gil Scott Heron by chance? recall his quote from B-Movie '..the first thing I wanna say is mandate my ass..' worth a listen.]  <br>  <br>
  • You will be able to fit all the LibDems MPs into the back of a London Cab after the next election !
  • edited September 2012
    Mature, relatively homogenous democracies tend to have two main centrist parties who fluctuate around the low thirties, and several smaller parties of a more radical or single-issue bent in the 5-20 range. We’re moving towards that (see the rise of the Greens and UKIP, as well as the consolidation of the Liberal Democrats) and gradually have been since the 1945 election. Next time I’m sure that the Lib Dems’s will haemorrhage support, but much of it will go to UKIP (from the Tories) or to other small parties. In the UK this process is retarded by our electoral system, and complicated by the growth of the nationalist parties, but the trend is well recognised.<br><br>Again, you wouldn’t be talking about ‘multiple high-speed u-turns’ if we lived in most other democratic states. First because parties are more careful about hard-line promises in their manifestos. And secondly because the electorate are more mature, and recognise that a party that gets 22% isn’t going to be able to impose all of it’s policies on the larger coalition partner which received 32% and that it would be infantile to cry ‘u-turn’ and ‘betrayal’ and ‘liar’ when they have to prioritise their policies and find common ground.<br><br>I don’t necessarily disagree with you re amateurs and current bad policy, but again that’s partisan, not principle. You really need to make a distinction between having a problem with policy and having a problem with the system by which your legislature and executive are chosen and assume a mandate. Your favourite party cannot always win, and they definitely cannot always get a majority of seats with a minority of the vote.<br><br>Further, the Labour party had three successive terms in office, as a majority administration on a minority vote. They did some good things, especially early on. But then they trashed civil liberties, deregulated the economy (thereby contributing to the crash), allowed the gap between rich and poor to get wider (what are Labour for, exactly?), and lead us into a war which many regard as catastrophic and illegal – all against the wishes of the majority of the electorate. Go figure. With each of the errors and excesses above it was the Lib Dems who rallied against it. Now if we had a proper pluralist electoral system, and Labour and the Lib Dems had been in coalition… <br>
  • edited September 2012
    As I say the govt. is hobbled by a very low grade electorate - poor them. <br><br>Arkady is it really maturity that enables a voter to curtail their expectations of a govt. to deliver just a policy or two? Sounds more like wearied resignation and a bar set very low. There is maturity in compromise but the risk when it is used too often as a lever is to end up seeing everything from all points of view and being unable to prioritise - compromise merely becomes a target outcome, never mind the method or content, then political paralysis and slow downs can ensue. [ Stamina being the currency in that case]<br><br>Noted re. UKIP, Greens et al - I also think there could yet be a splinter group from Tories or Libs as <br>they have some stubborn and restless cattle in their herds and leaders that command less than full support.<br>[ perhaps just a splinter website 'b*****ds r']<br><br>I worry more about the effects of policy and a lot less about the system which I don't expect consultation on too often - that way madness lies and it can lead straight to heart of the periphery.  The vote on electoral reform became the dampest of damp squibs despite Libs best efforts to rally for a big moment.<br><br>The de-regulators were Thatcher, Lawson,Howe et al - her legacy along with Parent Power and greed being a patriotic act.  Labour's failure was not to re-regulate but they did not break this economy. [ In 1997 no one in the Treasury would have accepted a bank could detach itself from the domestic economy and trade to undermine it ]   More's the pity then that Labour's call in 2010 on the likely outcome of this govt's. policies was scarily accurate.   Labour would have cut too - I think the respective 'business plans' only differ by about 400mill. [ but the pace, emphasis, implementation is the key ]<br><br>War disfigures and contorts govts. and opposition alike - the notion of a legal war is absurd - I don't get it and never will. I would  ban all military recruitment ads. and prevent them going within a mile of any school, college or workplace.  [ I'd also ban Bank ads. come to that ] Go figure indeed - I don't buy the Lib's favoured image of themselves as the electorate's conscience or moral guardian - too many years of their cheap position taking and squeezing thru' gaps to score media attention. Clegg still thinks he's TV gold but he's just deluded - like a cat trying to bury it's c**p on a frozen pond - what are the Libs exactly?   <br><br><br> <br>
  • Unstructured, fails to answer question. Define terms and rework around a clear hypothesis. Back assertions with evidence. C-
  • @Twinspark- To be honest I don't understand what you are saying. That may be my failure, but sentences like "that way madness lies and it can lead straight to heart of the periphery" tend to throw me off.<br>
  • <P>Read Alistair Darling's book it throws interesting light on what happened in 2007, 2008.</P> <P>History will show that Gord  was not that bad and had a very big role in what happened to avoid a total collapse which is what would have happened if the Tory policies of the time had been implemeneted.  The cash machines would have stopped that weekend of 5th October 2008.</P> <P>On predicting what would happen with the coalitions deficit  and public spending policy was entirely prdictable, even I predicted  it in the Harringey Cuts thread but was shouted down along the lines that there is no alternative which of course there is ( and was in the Darling plan).</P> <P>The Government will continue  with what they are doing, instead of having   full budget review in 2014 will do one for a year and then  who ever and  what  ever colour gets in after 2015 will change  policy to longer term paydown of debt which is entirerly suitable seeing the length the terms of UK governmentt debt. The UK is not Greece who have very shorter debt which need to be constantly renewed.</P> <P>Also the pound in your pocket    will only buy you about 85p compared to £1 at the start of the coalitions reign.  You all must notice this when you visit Tescos. I  am not sure it would be any better under a different government t the 1st two years of blaming the last government for everything will come home to roost.  Lib Dems are dead inhe water I am afraid </P>
  • I think you’re probably right about Brown. His problems were mostly about personality rather than policy. That said, his arse-licking of the financial sector during the good years (which Cable pointed out at the time would lead to trouble) ought not to be forgotten either.
  • Brown did very well to avoid a crash, and demonstrated skills as a firefighter which none of the current shower (except maybe Cable) could match. However, his failure to capitalise on that moment and rein in the banks, presumably because he still felt paralysed by a fear of being seen to be 'unfriendly to business' (or, you know, actually a Labour politician) was pathetic, and I think that was what really sealed his fate. 
  • edited September 2012
    @ Arkady - sorry if you were confused or I was less than clear. There is of course no heart of the periphery so to be led there would be to go nowhere. Pursuing compromise just to have compromise can hollow out the conclusion - nobody gets what they really want. <br><br>Quick point on Brown it was revolting to see Labour govts. in bed with/in thrall to the city circa 1997 but I think the hole in the exchequer's income created not least by the fire-sale of our 'family-silver' - eg utility co.'s sold on the cheap - meant the Treasury 'buddied up' to find ways of replacing lost income and generating new revenue.  This and some very wasteful thinking about the need to increase a hold on the middle ground just  formed a grip and the moment to put the banks in their place was lost. He was a good chancellor, I don't think Cable would have matched or done better as he is all about the idea and lacks any skill to implement. History will be kinder to Brown than many of his contemporaries - insert favourites in brackets here  [         ]<br><br><br>
  • Haven't read Darling's book, though he for me was the only one of them who appeared to grasp reality.  And got bollocked for it.<div><br></div><div>Not sure how Brown can be congratulated for 'avoiding a crash' when he had been the driving the bus since 1997.  Maybe as Chancellor he was better placed than most to see the metric fuck-tonne of debt he was lumbering the country with?  Or maybe making voters feel rich ("Your house has quadrupled in value since we deregulated the credit markets!") was a short-term vote winning strategy.   </div>
  • Yeah, I could have been clearer there. 'Avoiding a crash' in the sense that money kept coming out of the cashpoints. What happened was bad, but had Osborne's hand been on the tiller, we could have had a proper Argentina-circa-2000 job.
Sign In or Register to comment.