Posh Boys in trouble?

[Frances_iom]

- who speaks for the LibDems?

they no longer count - I suspect they will suffer the most as those in the top 25% or so will not desert their party knowing that the left will not give them anything like their current posh boys will - Clegg cannot easily dissociate his party from the economic woes to come - Osborne's slash + burn will destroy much of the Lib Dem's regional votes

[french frank]

Well, I'm sure you're right about the fate of the LibDems next week: get the in. But at least they can't also be accused of acting in their own interests. The coalition does indeed mean that all members have to assume collective responsibility. It also means that constituent parties can't automaticaly stop what they don't like or force through what their partners don't want. So I assume all those who attack the coalition are also against any electoral system which might result in more frequent coalitions? First Past The Post Rules - ?

But this is politics, not propaganda

[amateur51]

So I assume all those who attack the coalition are also against any electoral system which might result in more frequent coalitions? First Past The Post Rules - ?

Why so, french frank? I'm sure that Mr Miliband would have loved to do a deal with Mr Clegg but the latter allowed himself to be bounced into a rushed decision by the Posh Boys.

He could have said "I'll wait until see what sort of person gets chosen to be the next Labour leader, see what we have in common".

But Call Me Dave would have been bullyingand ragging him with " C'mon Cleggie we have to do this deal NOW because the Euro situation is such that we don't want to lose our S&P rating'

And poor Cleggie would have been left to talk to all his chums that he has in the EU, garnered long before CMD ever touched flesh with Berlusconi, Merkell & Sarkozy

Cometh the hour, cometh the Clegg - unfortunately

[MrGongGong]

So I assume all those who attack the coalition are also against any electoral system which might result in more frequent coalitions? :

Not at all
Its a shame that we didn't get PR
but the cause of that has been setback many many years

Some of us are not against coalitions but against dishonesty

[Lateralthinking1]

Iain Duncan Smith says that additional cuts to welfare would be inappropriate. Tim Yeo comments on the need to develop a long-term energy policy quickly. Peter Bone says that questions concerning Hunt should be investigated independently. Norman Fowler believes that we must fashion a new media landscape. David Davis opposes the snoopers' charter. And then there is Nadine.

Generally I am not a fan of any of them. They are, of course, from a range of backgrounds. I wouldn't wish to suggest that many people who are 55, 65, 75, 85, 95 are anything other than equally as remote as Cameron and Osborne. What strikes me though is that all of the above mentioned are 10-15 years older than our Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the vast majority of Ministers and compliant MPs. Duncan Smith is a particularly interesting individual because he seems to be growing up politically in public, not without difficulty. He remains contradictory but should be acknowledged for a willingness to learn and having some integrity.

The dodgy nature of Cameron's equine dalliances and his calm down dear sexism. Osborne's influence in appointing Coulson and arguably homophobic retorts in Parliament. The decision of Theresa Villiers to go to the Glastonbury Festival within days of becoming a Minister. Justine Greening developing a policy on airports that she has made a name for herself opposing. The appointment of a barefoot oddball as a policy adviser, now departed, and a wide boy from Smithfield to be in charge of finances. Odd expenses claims, Clare Perry telling another MP to "f*** off and join UKIP" and Michael Gove turning on a caller into 5 Live.

Many of us tend to comment on the darker aspects to some of these things, and others, but there is a strange combination of knowing sleights of hand and downright naivety. It is the latter and the accompanying immaturity that is the most worrying.

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

as A Rawnsley says in today's graun it is not your enemies you need fear in politics .... it is their friends who are duffing them over terminologically ....

compare Will Hutton who just comes straight out with Osborne being 'intellectually bankrupt' .... i am with you kernelbogey as to the stick-ability of the Dorries's epithet and the sheer forgetability of Will's abuse ... even though he has the better argument

[french frank]

I'm sure that Mr Miliband would have loved to do a deal with Mr Clegg but the latter allowed himself to be bounced into a rushed decision by the Posh Boys.

As you yourself suggest, in contradiction to this claim, Miliband wasn't leader of the Labour party, so there was little chance of him doing a deal with Clegg. And even the Labour party accepts that it wasn't in a position to do any sort of deal with anyone, so why amateur 51 should think any different is not obvious. Perhaps the dream team of LibDems and Greens should have been Clegg's bottom line?

PR: the point about PR is that it results in coalitions. And coalitions result in compromises. Dirty word, but it's a fact. You speak of Mr Miliband 'doing a deal' with Clegg: what do you think a deal is?

'The country' got what it deserved. Take tuition fees: 'the country' had the option of voting for a party which proposed abolishing fees. And 'the country' didn't vote for it, so clearly it wasn't high on their list of priorities. In spite of the lack of support (the LibDems actually lost seats at the last election) they get into a position where they can deal with the Tories, and 'the country' now castigates the LibDems for not keeping a promise that the vast majority of them didn't come out and support in the first place. If that isn't hypocrisy ... (especially from Labour supporters with whom the penny will now have dropped that they were going to raise tuition fees anyway: where would that have left the LibDems and their 'promise' if they had done a deal with Labour?). I assume that they could have broken all their mainfesto pledges as long as they were cooperating with Labour? That would be okay.


PS No more now as I'm just turning out in the wind and rain to deliver 'Bristol Says No' leaflet: No, I don't want a Tory imposed 'Boris Johnson' who will overrule elected councillors. Mr Heseletine and Mr Cameron have both hit the front page of the local rag with the headline 'Bristol needs a Mayor'. About the only way a Tory might have a chance of getting a say in running Bristol City council.

[MrGongGong]

Even though FF seems to be the only Libdem left with any credibility

i find this

PR: the point about PR is that it results in coalitions. And coalitions result in compromises.

a bit weak (as she will know doubt guess )

the point that Cleggers and Co seem to miss is that there is NO credibility in selling yourself as an "alternative" and then abandoning things you said you believed and then call it a "compromise" ...... and do the whole "get real, that's what politics is about" nonsense

Many of us DID vote for a party which had a clear stance on the tuition fees and then when they became part of the government they gave in and did the exact opposite of what they said they believed in ..... why on earth should we trust them ever again (or the rest of them for that matter ?) It's like Simon becoming the joint head of the Stockhausen society with MrP as his assistant !

[Lateralthinking1]

No more now as I'm just turning out in the wind and rain to deliver 'Bristol Says No' leaflet: No, I don't want a Tory imposed 'Boris Johnson' who will overrule elected councillors. Mr Heseletine and Mr Cameron have both hit the front page of the local rag with the headline 'Bristol needs a Mayor'. About the only way a Tory might have a chance of getting a say in running Bristol City council.

ff, A sensible line to take. I did the same in London but lost. People preferred to have the choice between a very rich person who belonged to a society which smashed up restaurants, another who claimed to be for the working people but avoided tax, regularly invents facts in interviews and makes anti Jewish comments, a third who was a police officer and yet allegedly broke the law smoking cannabis, a fourth who is a South American immigrant but favours anti-immigration policy, a fifth who aspires to cap salaries in the capital knowing that this is beyond mayoral powers, a sixth who claims to be independent from the establishment but was pally with Gus O'Donnell and a seventh whose promises to slash tax on beer and reintroduce smoking in pubs have been shown to be a lot of waffle. The calibre of seven people picked randomly from a London street would be higher. It's an ego trip.

[Serial_Apologist]

It's like Simon becoming the joint head of the Stockhausen society with MrP as his assistant !

I somehow doubt if Simon has ever had a joint, let alone his having a head!

But surely the point is that, had Clegg not agreed to go into partnership with the Tories, Cameron would have had to lead a minority Conservative government, regardless of who was leading Labour, and would therefore have been in a position to oppose the govt on increasing tuition fees, thereby potentially defeating Cameron on a central plank of government policy.

[amateur51]

As you yourself suggest, in contradiction to this claim, Miliband wasn't leader of the Labour party, so there was little chance of him doing a deal with Clegg. And even the Labour party accepts that it wasn't in a position to do any sort of deal with anyone, so why amateur 51 should think any different is not obvious. Perhaps the dream team of LibDems and Greens should have been Clegg's bottom line?

But that's all part of the problem as I laid it out, french frank. There was too much of a giddy rush in the pace set by Cameron & Posh Boys & Clegg fell for it. The time-table for Brown's replacement was known and it would have been possible (and eminently sensible) for Clegg to have said that he wanted to wait & see who was elected. Let's not fool ourselves that there was a need for a fast result - we were not at war and a sensible timetable could have been created and delivered. I grant that the Media was beside itself with anxiety but perhaps it was time to show some leadership? What am I saying?!

As for the rest I think that Clegg has misread how 'the country' expected him to play his hand. He has been largely acquiescent or he has gone into hiding (quite disgracefully). This bit of 'the country' expected Clegg to stand up to Cameron more and to use what power he had to divest Cameron of his 'doing our bit for the country' mantra. Frankly, he 'bottled' the NHS debates. He seems to have bought into the idea of a five-year parliament far too much: one thing that 'the country' expects of a coalition, I would suggest, is more of a bumpy ride, perhaps threats of leaving, etc.

I'm afraid it all smacks of the rush to power, ambition masked as public duty over-riding any judgement that might have been there in the first place.

[french frank]

The time-table for Brown's replacement was known and it would have been possible (and eminently sensible) for Clegg to have said that he wanted to wait & see who was elected.

But you're ignoring the fact that, whoever was leading the Labour party, s/he wouldn't have had the seats to make a deal. Ignoring too the difficulty the LibDems would still have had when Labour proposed their rise in tuition fees. [Their last bid was at £6,000p.a., but since they kept mum before the election about the need to raise fees and they now don't have to bother about it, you can take that as a minimum.]

Labour lost the election: the majority wanted them out. I like your idea of democracy that says they ought nevertheless to have been given a chance to stay in power. Even without coalitions there's all sorts of shuffling about with policies in a ruling party (including councils). And the reason why, in terms of policies, people think of the parties as 'all the same' is because the room for manoeuvre and the solutions available in this kind of political system, are few. If you really think (in spite of Alan Johnson's revelations when he was Chancellor) that Labour would have been able to opt for measures that stung the rich and benefited the poor, it's because, for some reason, you want to believe it.

As a rider, on tuition fees, I think the LibDems would have found that it was not possible (on purely economic grounds) to stop tuition fees rising substantially; and once in government and helping to shape a detailed policy, they would have again been faced with the impossible choice: stick with a position which they knew to be untenable (No rise in tuition fees) or fight for priorities that they believed in, namely an increase in funding to help less well-off students (known as a 'compromise').

And, no, MrGG, I don't 'guess' that pointing out that coalitions - deals between parties which have different priorities and in some areas opposing policies - involve compromises is a 'weak' argument. It seems to me self-evident. Any union negotiator surely knows that you have to admit defeat on some points in order to get a settlement.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No more now as I'm just turning out in the wind and rain to deliver 'Bristol Says No' leaflet: No, I don't want a Tory imposed 'Boris Johnson' who will overrule elected councillors. Mr Heseletine and Mr Cameron have both hit the front page of the local rag with the headline 'Bristol needs a Mayor'. About the only way a Tory might have a chance of getting a say in running Bristol City council.

Good luck with the leaflet, ff. The very idea of a mayor with presidential powers suggests a leaning towards dictatorship. I have never liked it.

[teamsaint]

Cleggy IS one of the posh boys.
labour refuse to support workers striking to defend their pension rights, and their front bench is full of city bankers and lawyers .
Ordinary people watch as their living standards(such as they are) are eroded, while the rich get richer, and "globalisation" delivers precisely zilch for the very poor on our exhausted planet.

never mind, liz and phil come to town tuesday, and the running and swimming races will be along soon to cheer us up.....and there are plenty of jobs if you are in the "top of block of flats ground to air missiles" business.
Give me strength.

[amateur51]

But you're ignoring the fact that, whoever was leading the Labour party, s/he wouldn't have had the seats to make a deal. Ignoring too the difficulty the LibDems would still have had when Labour proposed their rise in tuition fees. [Their last bid was at £6,000p.a., but since they kept mum before the election about the need to raise fees and they now don't have to bother about it, you can take that as a minimum.]

Labour lost the election: the majority wanted them out. I like your idea of democracy that says they ought nevertheless to have been given a chance to stay in power. Even without coalitions there's all sorts of shuffling about with policies in a ruling party (including councils). And the reason why, in terms of policies, people think of the parties as 'all the same' is because the room for manoeuvre and the solutions available in this kind of political system, are few. If you really think (in spite of Alan Johnson's revelations when he was Chancellor) that Labour would have been able to opt for measures that stung the rich and benefited the poor, it's because, for some reason, you want to believe it.

As a rider, on tuition fees, I think the LibDems would have found that it was not possible (on purely economic grounds) to stop tuition fees rising substantially; and once in government and helping to shape a detailed policy, they would have again been faced with the impossible choice: stick with a position which they knew to be untenable (No rise in tuition fees) or fight for priorities that they believed in, namely an increase in funding to help less well-off students (known as a 'compromise').

And, no, MrGG, I don't 'guess' that pointing out that coalitions - deals between parties which have different priorities and in some areas opposing policies - involve compromises is a 'weak' argument. It seems to me self-evident. Any union negotiator surely knows that you have to admit defeat on some points in order to get a settlement.

As you keep reminding me french frank, a coalition is a compromise so it's no good your presenting Labour as unswervingly devoted to its manifesto commitments

History would have been on a Lab/Lib Dem coalition's side too although the previous one was a pact, and it didn't last too long, something we can only wish for in the present circumstances