New Little Red Book in France

[Simon]

Not inclined? You're off target here, ff. As a matter of fact, in my own small way, and locally, I've done quite a lot about what I think is unfairness. But I haven't changed the whole system and I haven't stopped greedy bankers pocketing vast sums of undeserved money, though. Why not? Because I can't.

As for PR - it doesn't work. Ask any Italian. It leads to grubby deals and to tiny, unrepresentative and even extreme groups wielding massive power.
What does work is two parties of differing views - but also realistic views - working together and compromising to keep a country giong. Nick Clegg's latest on control orders is a case in point:

"I don't think it's justifiable to impose virtual house arrest without having to charge or convict someone first.

I think it's very clear it's one of the current flaws we are seeking to address, but at the same time you have to deal with the inescapable reality that there are a small number of people who want to cause immense damage to us who, for one reason or another, good or bad, we cannot get to court.

"One thing I can predict safely is that, for people who think control orders as they are are perfect, they will be disappointed. For people who think they should be scrapped altogether, they will be disappointed as well."

That's about as sensible and realistic and fair as you can get, in my view!

[Uncle Monty]

"I'm a pragmatist, a realist. We have to work with the world as it is, not as we might wish it were."

Yes, while walking the dogs just now, I was thinking I ought to say something about that one!

I'm sure we all think we're realists, with a pretty firm grip of the world situation. But we need not use that as an excuse for doing absolutely nothing to combat what we regard as injustices, not even writing the occasional email.

I agree that citing the silence of decent German people before World War 2 is a reassonable analogy in that sense. We're not talking about ethnic cleansing and mass murder, but we do have a situation where (and we have to recognise this in ourselves, surely) despite ample evidence of awful wrongs in the world at micro and macro level, it is less bother to sit on our hands, concentrate on our own comfort, and do nothing.

As for PR, and the upcoming referendum, I find myself split. I am all for "fair votes", probably most reasonable people would say they were, but I still feel that the Lib Dems deserve to be punished and humiliated for their unprincipled opportunism. This may even lead me to vote against, though I realise that is what Sartre would have called mauvaise foi. Though not as mauvaise as that of Clegg and co, however

[french frank]

What I need is some boffin to tell me how the last election might have worked out if we'd had AV. Would it have avoided this current unmandated shambles? (I know it isn't possible to do this, before any sparko points this out - it's just that this's what I want )

Not sure that I have time to look out the reference that I was reading only this very morning . The ERS (I think it was) calculated that under AV, and with the same constituency boundaries, Labour would have been just 19 seats behind the Tories. The LDs would have increased their seats (instead of losing them).

Unmandated shambles? But, my dear sir, you misunderstand the role of the voter. As Leo Amery said:

"the voter is not in a position to choose either the kind of representative or the kind of government he would like if he had a free choice...his function is the limited and essentially passive one of [choosing between] two alternatives put before him."

There is no mandated government with FPTP. You might just as well invite the Queen to toss a coin: Heads Tory, tails Labour. Especially when you can see that 'the electorate', having voted, then decides it prefers the party that didn't win ...

[I really didn't want to divert this discussion. Why doesn't someone start a new thread on Arts & Ideas?]

[french frank]

The ERS projections under STV and AV http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/n...p?ex=0&nid=469 .

[Lateralthinking1]

Amateur51 - Yes, it is here too:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/10/proportional-representation-general-election-2010

[Simon]

...but I still feel that the Lib Dems deserve to be punished and humiliated for their unprincipled opportunism.

What a funny old world it is!

I, as a conservative not naturally in favour of most Lib-Dem ideas, on the other hand think that the guts and principle they showed in supporting the party that most people voted for in an effort to clear up the mess the last lot left and get the country on track, despite it being unpopular with their own supporters, is one of the most courageous and heartening things to happen in recent years in politics.

Ah well.. :)

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

it is the voting system and it is the parties and their options, after all a majority or a coalition of the inadequate or unacceptable is no good at all eh .... it is about values, it is about not swallowing one's outrage, it is about how difficult it is to change our politics and it is about how truly dangerous it is even if we respond differently ..... i am with Hessel, after my own local experiences, it is not the voting system or the votes, it is about getting off one's behind and turning up, and raising and arguing the issues .... and developing a new set of propositions based on social values not economic ones as narrowly espoused currently

the tax farm casino system currently trades $700,000bn per year of which less than 15% is related to investment, manufacture, services, or anything else to do with the 'real' economy [what would 5% of the UK share do for the deficit, London being the prime hub of currency speculation]

it is clear that many individuals running the tax farm casino system think that the crisis was the fault of people taking mortgages they shouldn't have ...... that the banks, hedge funds etc did nothing intrinsically wrong or unsound .... and that they, the elite, should continue to be paid their ransom ....

i think the fault line between the people and the establishment is bigger and a lot more dangerous than the fault line between the sides in the Cold War ... especially given the context of climate, population and essential resources .... food, water, oil could produce social upheavals within days of undreamed scale and intensity ..... politics and authority are derided with an intensity unsurpassed since the 30s .... 'now, now, steady' will not do .... i do not want to pull anything down, that is a 20th century metaphor, i want to rescue a civilised society ...

If you wake at Midnight, and hear a horse's feet,
Don't go drawing back the blind, or looking in the street,
Them that asks no questions isn't told a lie.
Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!

Five and twenty ponies
Trotting through the dark -
Brandy for the Parson.
'Baccy for the Clerk;
Laces for a lady, letters for a spy,
And watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by!

[french frank]

but I still feel that the Lib Dems deserve to be punished and humiliated for their unprincipled opportunism.

Let me quote two percentages for you: 8% and 65%.

8% is the LDs' current support in the polls. 65% is the amount of the party's manifesto which has been agreed by the coalition: specific LibDem policies, not policies that were shared by the two parties. Now, you tell me whether it's worth the party being vilified, 'punished' and 'humiliated'. Opportunism? Yes, grabbing the opportunity to get LibDem policies brought into force. Would it have been better to say no to coalition and be hailed as jolly good, principled chaps, but - as ever - politically irrelevant?

[Lateralthinking1]

Too much too soon. Labour handed out too much. The current lot are doing a lot of things too soon. I am happy to be entirely unrealistic and would like to turn back the clock - or at least the one on St Stephens Tower - by several decades. What would I do?

While I'm a modern sort when it comes to art and music, and somewhat radical in view, there's a significant strand in me that is highly traditional. It takes a lot of awful to make me want to change tried and tested methods. But awful is what we have had for too long now - mismanagement of the economy, growing inequality, corruption on expenses to an unprecedented degree.

I too like the idea of compulsory voting with the proviso of a None of the Above box. Seeing that this is unlikely to happen, I favour a "None of the Above" party. A NOTA candidate in every constituency with just one objective. If elected as a Government, no visits to the Queen until a referendum has been held on twelve key issues, the public's decisions about which would form the basis to a new written constitution.

Once written, there would be a further referendum, undertaken in one week, on whether the text reflected the stated will of the majority of the people, followed by another election. Only then might we have a sensible means of moving forward.

[Uncle Monty]

Let me quote two percentages for you: 8% and 65%.

8% is the LDs' current support in the polls. 65% is the amount of the party's manifesto which has been agreed by the coalition: specific LibDem policies, not policies that were shared by the two parties. Now, you tell me whether it's worth the party being vilified, 'punished' and 'humiliated'. Opportunism? Yes, grabbing the opportunity to get LibDem policies brought into force. Would it have been better to say no to coalition and be hailed as jolly good, principled chaps, but - as ever - politically irrelevant?

I think we've been here before at least once

Yes, of course it would have been better, given that most LibDem supporters had and presumably still have nothing but contempt for the Conservatives and all they stand for. As far as I can see, none of the LD policies being taken up by the Coalition are particularly contentious, and don't hurt the Tories at all, whereas the LDs cannot go along with, e.g., tuition fees without making themselves look ridiculous, duplicitous and desperate for power at any price. No endless repetition of "in the national interest" can cover that, as witness, presumably the current 8% support.

[french frank]

As far as I can see, none of the LD policies being taken up by the Coalition are particularly contentious

Which ones are not 'contentious'?

[Uncle Monty]

Which ones are not 'contentious'?

Well, how long have you got?!

Just off the top of my head, how about not replacing Trident, scrapping ID cards, scrapping compulsory-purchase pension annuities at age 75, 150,000 affordable (vaguely defined) new homes, renewing the commitment to end child poverty by 2020. . . All except the last two would probably have figured in Tory plans anyway.

In any case, any victories are likely to be pyrrhic, because the Tories will explain away any policies with the slightest whiff of progressiveness about them as the price they sadly have to pay for LD support.

And the LibDems are presumably already paying the price for their late conversion to the slash & burn approach to the deficit. People expect it from the Tories, but not from them.

[Mr Pee]

I found the over zealous moderation of the R3 boards somewhat frustrating, but there was one rule I agreed with- about posting in foreign languages. Post 3, by Vinteuil, on this thread is simply reams of text which is way beyond my schoolboy French, and therefore totally incomprehensible.

If you're going to quote so extensively, please don't assume that we will all understand it, and at least offer a partial summary in English.

[french frank]

In any case, any victories are likely to be pyrrhic, because the Tories will explain away any policies with the slightest whiff of progressiveness about them as the price they sadly have to pay for LD support.

And the LibDems are presumably already paying the price for their late conversion to the slash & burn approach to the deficit. People expect it from the Tories, but not from them.

But you seem to imagine this will have come as a great surprise to them, rather than the predictable consequence of taking a hugely unpopular action?

In the Tory 'slash-and-burn approach to the deficit', they have persuaded the Tories to take 900,000 of the lowest paid out of tax altogether - which costs the Treasury in revenue. They have reversed Thatcher's cunning money-saver of linking pensions to retail prices by restoring the link with earnings: more to be paid out to pensioners, with a 'triple lock' guarantee of a 2.5% rise. Amid the public service cuts, they have won £2.5bn to put into schools budgets, specifically to help disadvantaged pupils. Now, Simon doesn't think that we should be paying out money in overseas aid when our old folk are dying in squalor on hospital trollies: the LibDems have persuaded the Tories to put more money into overseas aid and commit to reaching the UN target of 0.7% of GNI. Plus those perennial Tory favourites of whacking up CGT and introducing a bank levy. And a number of investments in low-carbon technologies. All expense, expense, expense. No need to mention the referendum on voting change, which the Tories will in any case be out in forcing campaigning for, of course. All policies in place. And the Trident delay was certainly not signalled in the Tory manifesto

And surely, the question is not whether these are 'uncontentious' and readily conceded by the Tories (or Labour, had they won the election); it's whether left to their own devices they would have introduced them.

You see the LDs' poll rating as retribution: I see it as a predictable quid pro quo: 'sell out' the students for the pensioners, lower paid and under privileged.

The NUS pledge was a no-win for the LibDems. I know one MP who didn't sign it, not because he wouldn't but because his office didn't give it to him to sign. Can he be smug? No. Would you have signed it, Mr X, if you'd been given it? Erm, y-y-yes, I suppose so. There you are than, you're just as bad as the rest of your pernicious crew, because you voted for an increase. On the other hand, I might not have signed it, all things considered, and in view of the, erm ... complex nature ... unpredictable finance ... Ha, so, Mr X you were leaving the door open to vote for higher fees, were you, in spite of your party's policy to abolish them? Erm, n-n-no, I ... [MP subsides into quivering heap, muttering I don't know, I don't know, I don't know]

[Flosshilde]

Exactly what I said, Mr Pee (cf no. 25). Simon, in his response, did suggest that those who could read it could perhaps do a joint translation, but that doesn't seem to have happened.

However, as it seems to have unleashed Simon in all his glory I'm not sure that I can be bothered to join in