HoLords reform hits the skids

[MrGongGong]

So you would do away with elections? Perhaps have a fully appointed parliament? Hmm - who would select members, as the great British public aren't capable? Oh, I know! - how about the monarch?

I thought we have "done away" with elections anyway ...............

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

yep time to elect a new people innit

[Flosshilde]

The 'great British public' seem to have done so

[Resurrection Man]

So you would do away with elections? Perhaps have a fully appointed parliament? Hmm - who would select members, as the great British public aren't capable? Oh, I know! - how about the monarch?

Putting words into my mouth. I never said that. I am advocating that we do not elect members to the House of Lords as is being suggested. Membership selection seems to work quite well at the moment IMO. There are some excellent members in the Lords. Your comment regarding the monarchy is facile. Ditto MrGG's comments (predictable though they are) regarding the Royal Family....perhaps we should call you Red Herring?

[JohnSkelton]

The key difference was that in the LibDems' 'deal' with the electorate, the electorate didn't keep its part of the bargain, not even to return the 30%+ that they were 'promising' before the poll. The party came out of the election worse off than they went into it. What kind of endorsement was that for their election policies?

Oh, of course - it's that à la carte menu again - the pick 'n' mix approach, isn't it? 'You may have got enough of your policies through to enrage the right-wing of the Tories, but that isn't enough. You should have delivered everything (or at least on tuition fees) - even if we didn't back you.'

The 'deal' in a party manifesto isn't with "the electorate" though, surely? It's a prospective deal with that section of the electorate who go on to vote for the party whose manifesto contains the policies etc. Unless the LibDem manifesto said 'we'll oppose any rise in tuition fees and work to abolish them if we get enough votes to form a government on our own, otherwise we reserve the right to abandon the policy in a coalition' then LibDem voters have every cause for complaint should they choose to complain? Non LibDem voters might have cause to be generally irritated by the negotiable character of political 'pledges' and to point to this specific instance as glaring. I'm not sure what the New Labour position on tuition fees is now or was then, but that's not unusual. Perhaps the lesson is to say nothing concrete about anything, but when you do it's a bit lame to complain that the "electorate" didn't back you. The "electorate" never backs anything, because it can't: it's a chimera. The "electorate" didn't speak and vote for a coalition: people voted Tory in greater numbers than New Labour and voted Tory and New Labour in greater numbers than LibDem but some collective unconscious wasn't at work. It's just what happened when people who did vote voted.

All of that is worsened by the current electoral system, but for me the system is a secondary problem to the effective consensus between the three largest parties. I simply don't accept the story that people don't vote because of apathy: I think they don't vote out of cynicism which produces apathy, but I think a lot of people don't vote because they simply don't feel any of the largest parties represents them or has any interest in them. New Labour gave up any interest in representing as against preaching to the working class and the poor in the 90s / 2000s (that's any vestige of an interest). The LibDems are a party of predominantly middle class progressive issues, and the Tories are a party of the middle and upper middle classes with a deep set contempt for the poor (especially when they come over all concerned. Look at Iain Duncan-Smith's moralising savagery).

[amateur51]

The key difference was that in the LibDems' 'deal' with the electorate, the electorate didn't keep its part of the bargain, not even to return the 30%+ that they were 'promising' before the poll. The party came out of the election worse off than they went into it. What kind of endorsement was that for their election policies?

Oh, of course - it's that à la carte menu again - the pick 'n' mix approach, isn't it? 'You may have got enough of your policies through to enrage the right-wing of the Tories, but that isn't enough. You should have delivered everything (or at least on tuition fees) - even if we didn't back you.'

You can do better than that, french frank

[aeolium]

All of that is worsened by the current electoral system, but for me the system is a secondary problem to the effective consensus between the three largest parties. I simply don't accept the story that people don't vote because of apathy: I think they don't vote out of cynicism which produces apathy, but I think a lot of people don't vote because they simply don't feel any of the largest parties represents them or has any interest in them.

I quite agree, and that it is not just due to the system can be seen by the same disillusionment, cynicism and hopelessness in electorates pretty well throughout Europe, where most countries operate forms of proportional representation. And the root cause is the inability of any major political party, anywhere, to stand up against the powerful interests of the wealthy and of large corporations. Governments effectively become oligarchies operating on behalf of a pretty small but very powerful section of society. Until that Faustian pact is broken, there is no chance that governments can act in the public interest.

[french frank]

The 'deal' in a party manifesto isn't with "the electorate" though, surely? It's a prospective deal with that section of the electorate who go on to vote for the party whose manifesto contains the policies etc.

Assuming that to be the case (I don't think it is ), then why would the 77% of those who voted for other parties complain? - since the 'deal' wasn't with them, but with - as a maximum - the 23% of the voters who voted LibDem (that number including those who had no particular interest in individual policies, or may even have opposed or been sceptical about them, since they can only vote for a package).

And if the deal is not with the electorate, then it is only with those who a) voted and b) voted LibDem, which makes it just under 15% of the total electorate (which I make about 46m). What kind of 'democracy' expects a party for which over 85% of the electorate didn't vote, who lost a net 5 seats compared with last time, to deliver on every aspect of its manifesto?

Not that this is strictly relevant because I disagree with your 'surely?' point. The manifesto is directed at the electorate as a whole, every individual who is entitled to vote. But, yes, you are right that it is a 'prospective* deal', not a firm deal, and implies that the party will have the parliamentary strength to fulfil it. That is part of the 'prospect'.

* Expected or expecting to be (the object or thing specified) in the future; that is in prospect; proposed, likely, potential. (Now the usual sense.)

1906 A. Quiller-Couch From Cornish Window 200 Our Parliamentary Candidate—or Prospective Candidate, as we cautiously call him—has been visiting us.

[amateur51]

Assuming that to be the case (I don't think it is ), then why would the 77% of those who voted for other parties complain? - since the 'deal' wasn't with them, but with - as a maximum - the 23% of the voters who voted LibDem (that number including those who had no particular interest in individual policies, or may even have opposed or been sceptical about them, since they can only vote for a package).

And if the deal is not with the electorate, then it is only with those who a) voted and b) voted LibDem, which makes it just under 15% of the total electorate (which I make about 46m). What kind of 'democracy' expects a party for which over 85% of the electorate didn't vote, who lost a net 5 seats compared with last time, to deliver on every aspect of its manifesto?

Not that this is strictly relevant because I disagree with your 'surely?' point. The manifesto is directed at the electorate as a whole, every individual who is entitled to vote. But, yes, you are right that it is a 'prospective* deal', not a firm deal, and implies that the party will have the parliamentary strength to fulfil it. That is part of the 'prospect'.

* Expected or expecting to be (the object or thing specified) in the future; that is in prospect; proposed, likely, potential. (Now the usual sense.)

1906 A. Quiller-Couch From Cornish Window 200 Our Parliamentary Candidate—or Prospective Candidate, as we cautiously call him—has been visiting us.

If this is current LibDem thinking, french frank then I think you (as in The Party) have lost the plot in a big way. This is way too esoteric an argument for most people (myself included) You misled us and have stuffed up big style pretty well ever since. Time for a major rethink.

Back to the topic. Is it really sensible of Lib Dems to try pulling the manifesto card at this stage?

[french frank]

This is way too esoteric an argument for most people (myself included)

You mustn't judge the entire electorate on your own limitations, Amsy!

But arguments, rather than unfounded assertions based on your (self-confessed) difficulty in understanding, would make it easier to continue the discussion

[amateur51]

You mustn't judge the entire electorate on your own limitations, Amsy!

But arguments, rather than unfounded assertions based on your (self-confessed) difficulty in understanding, would make it easier to continue the discussion

By all means patronise the electorate and confine your party to the potato sidings of history, french frank.

[aeolium]

The manifesto is directed at the electorate as a whole, every individual who is entitled to vote. But, yes, you are right that it is a 'prospective* deal', not a firm deal, and implies that the party will have the parliamentary strength to fulfil it. That is part of the 'prospect'.

For the Libdems though, it was as certain as anything can be that they would not be the largest single party following the 2010 election, and that at best they would be a minority party in a coalition. In these circumstances, they would never be able to deliver on their manifesto commitments, only those which would be acceptable to a majority coalition partner. Knowing the positions of the other major parties on tuition fees, the leadership of the Libdems must have known that their position was not going to be possible to implement and that to make a pledge to abolish fees was essentially dishonest opportunism. The only way I could see that they could escape this charge after the election was if they had made the pledge a matter of principle - that they would not support in any circumstances the implementation of a tuition fees rise. By trading support for tuition fees as a bargaining tool for their participation in government and for some other things that they thought they could achieve, they made it appear as though none of their manifesto promises - even ones they had backed up with written pledges - were worth anything more than an invitation to trade. That is Clegg's legacy for the next election.

[amateur51]

For the Libdems though, it was as certain as anything can be that they would not be the largest single party following the 2010 election, and that at best they would be a minority party in a coalition. In these circumstances, they would never be able to deliver on their manifesto commitments, only those which would be acceptable to a majority coalition partner. Knowing the positions of the other major parties on tuition fees, the leadership of the Libdems must have known that their position was not going to be possible to implement and that to make a pledge to abolish fees was essentially dishonest opportunism. The only way I could see that they could escape this charge after the election was if they had made the pledge a matter of principle - that they would not support in any circumstances the implementation of a tuition fees rise. By trading support for tuition fees as a bargaining tool for their participation in government and for some other things that they thought they could achieve, they made it appear as though none of their manifesto promises - even ones they had backed up with written pledges - were worth anything more than an invitation to trade. That is Clegg's legacy for the next election.

I for one shall be asking all candidates to identify those parts of their manifesto that are hard-wired non-negotiable and those that are subject to coalition discussion

They've only got themselves to blame

[JohnSkelton]

I didn't say the manifesto wasn't "directed at the electorate as a whole" - it was you who wrote of a "deal"; so it's aimed at the electorate as a whole, but the "deal" if that's what it is is ultimately with people who liked the LibDem's policies enough to vote for them. You vote for us, this is what you'll get. It wasn't a vague, open-ended, subject to changing circumstances aspiration (IIRC the 'pledge' said that even if the LibDems weren't the party in government they would work to prevent student fee increases and argue for abolition?) People may have voted LibDem to keep one or other of New Labour / Tories out, but I'd imagine activists like to think people vote positively for their party?

I read you as effectively saying it's not the fault of the LibDem's that they broke the tuition fees pledge, it's the fault of the electorate for not backing them. I reckon what happened was the party hierarchy weren't keen but thought it could be a vote winner (could take votes away from the other two parties), could be presented as a challenge to the other two parties, and didn't much think past that to what might happen in any coalition. That might be the way of things in the world of same politics, but it's impressive the way you manage to conjure a positive glow of virtue to surround the abandonment of that 'pledge'. As in, we haven't done anything wrong and it's the fault of the electorate that we had to do the anything wrong that we didn't do anyway .

[amateur51]

" ...it's impressive the way you manage to conjure a positive glow of virtue to surround the abandonment of that 'pledge'. As in, we haven't done anything wrong and it's the fault of the electorate that we had to do the anything wrong that we didn't do anyway .