UK Election 2015

[SteveS1]

An interesting article from the Guardian: How much of the Liberal Democrats' 2010 election manifesto was implemented?

It seems to me the vast majority of what they got through fitted in nicely with Tory policy. So a few tacks and jibes but the ship sailed in the same direction.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...crats-2010-election-manifesto-was-implemented

Well here's the thing. Do you think it might have been different if they had been the majority partner? Then you might have had cause for complaint. As it is, you still seem to fail to understand (or choose to ignore) the bargaining position of the minority in a coalition.

 

[deanf]

Well here's the thing. Do you think it might have been different if they had been the majority partner? Then you might have had cause for complaint. As it is, you still seem to fail to understand (or choose to ignore) the bargaining position of the minority in a coalition.

You seem to be telling me they're responsible for the good things but not the bad things, you can't have it both ways.

 

[SteveS1]

You seem to be telling me they're responsible for the good things but not the bad things, you can't have it both ways.

Not at any point did I remotely say that. The Tories have the 'all good things them, all bad things Clegg' thing successfully tied up and you are going along with it. All I have said is that the alternative was unfetted Tory manifesto and that people more interested in kicking Clegg for not being able to dictate are conveniently ignoring what minority position means.

Yes he could have refused to join, the result would have been pure Tory manifesto, Clegg wouldn't get the abuse. Warm fuzzy feelings for the sparts, more pain for everyone else who voted against the Tories but at least the "it's not the Tories fault it's the Lib Dem sell out" nonsense wouldn't have featured.

 

[Robert]

Or Russia.

Indeed. It too embraced the market economy for the enrichment of its Stalinist elite. It's now a full market economy of course, and suffering.

 

[deanf]

Not at any point did I remotely say that. The Tories have the 'all good things them, all bad things Clegg' thing successfully tied up and you are going along with it. All I have said is that the alternative was unfetted Tory manifesto and that people more interested in kicking Clegg for not being able to dictate are conveniently ignoring what minority position means.

Yes he could have refused to join, the result would have been pure Tory manifesto, Clegg wouldn't get the abuse. Warm fuzzy feelings for the sparts, more pain for everyone else who voted against the Tories but at least the "it's not the Tories fault it's the Lib Dem sell out" nonsense wouldn't have featured.

I'm struggling to see how the Tories could've been much worse. I would still argue it was as much to do with it being a first term without a majority rather than direct LibDem intervention, but I take your point.

 

[DavidY80]

.. All I have said is that the alternative was unfetted Tory manifesto and that people more interested in kicking Clegg for not being able to dictate are conveniently ignoring what minority position means.

Yes he could have refused to join, the result would have been pure Tory manifesto, Clegg wouldn't get the abuse. Warm fuzzy feelings for the sparts, more pain for everyone else who voted against the Tories but at least the "it's not the Tories fault it's the Lib Dem sell out" nonsense wouldn't have featured.

Except that, without a majority, the Tories wouldn't have been able to go to right wing extremes anyway, so the LibDems didn't save us from that, as much as they'd like to claim.

I find Clegg's arrogance amazing. What he's saying is effectively, "you're not going to vote for us in sufficient numbers to make us the government, but we're going to make sure you get our policies anyway, because you were all too stupid to know who to vote for in the first place"

And they're going to do this by propping up a Tory government that they claim will do the wrong things for the UK as a whole.

He wants to be the "heart" of the tories, and "head" of Labour! Get stuffed Nick.

 

[Paul R]

Or he could have formed a government with Labour,

306 Conservative
258 Labour
57 Liberal Democrat

326 for a majority. I think even Brown could do that sum.

Paul

 

[matthewr]

I think that's somewhat unfair. They are a centralist party and they formed a government with the party that had attained the largest vote-share and number of seats in the election. It would have been rather hard for them to do otherwise in the political climate of that election, though I suspect there is a rather better mass comprehension of coalition/consensus politics now. Can you imagine the stink had they formed a coalition with the then widely detested Gordon Brown leading a failed Labour administration that had come second to the Conservatives by quite some distance? Remember the Tories were still hugging huskies, hoodies, wind-turbines etc at that point and rather appealed to the centre-ground.

In many ways it was a no-win situation for the LDs as the whole UK political system is not designed to cope with anything but a majority from one of two archaic parties and a polulation with that expectation. In some respects I wish they'd have just done a confidence and supply deal, but that might well have ended worse with an early election and a truly disastrous Conservative majority. As a party they'd have achieved less but would have emerged from the process less damaged. On the whole I think they did OK and politics today is a rather more interesting place as a result.

They were a 'centralist' party when triangulated by the Torys and a much further to the left Labour party. Where they currently are is that their right wing is to the right of labour and their left wing is to the left. So basically the LibDems are teabagging Ed Milliband (I shall leave you with that mental image )

Gordon Brown did of course stand down and one imagines Danny Alexander not Ed Balls would have been chancellor.

As for the counterfactual remember Labour's policy in 2010 was that the Tory plan was "too far too fast" which means the LibDems would have been in a government that a) would have done much less austerity and b) would have had the freedom to change policy when it was obviously not working. My recollection is also that the LibDem's ideological zeal for Austerity is largely a function of being part of the Coalition and therefore having to somehow defend a policy that led to a shrinking of the economy, increased misery for disabled people and people dying of cancer having their benefits cut.

 

[deanf]

306 Conservative
258 Labour
57 Liberal Democrat

326 for a majority. I think even Brown could do that sum.

Paul

It wasn't a three horse race and half of 650 is 325, he did that without a calculator.

 

[Tony L]

They were a 'centralist' party when triangulated by the Torys and a much further to the left Labour party. Where they currently are is that their right wing is to the right of labour and their left wing is to the left. So basically the LibDems are teabagging Ed Milliband (I shall leave you with that mental image )

The Libs/LibDems are exactly where they always have been, the issue is that Labour has shifted all over the map over recent decades, e.g. it was well to the left of the Libs under Wilson, Callaghan etc, lurched far to the right and became another Tory party under Blair (privatisation, PFI, authoritarianism, US Republican foreign policy, faith schools etc etc) and doesn't really know where the hell it is right now!

 

[Paul R]

That's why it's 326 for a majority....

What combination do you suggest could have passed a Queen's speech and maintained a government for 5 years?

I'm sensing a tiny bit of desperation here. Is that representative of Labour on the ground?

Paul

 

[SteveS1]

Except that, without a majority, the Tories wouldn't have been able to go to right wing extremes anyway, so the LibDems didn't save us from that, as much as they'd like to claim.

I disagree, but can't prove a negative. Having lived through one hung result (Labour Feb '74) I would have expected this one to go the same way had they tried that.

Short period of trying to govern with inevitable squabbling. Cameron would have cried foul in terms of not being able to govern without a majority and the electorate would be minded to deliver him a majority in a fresh poll (as they did Labour in Oct '74). This is not surprising because the previous government's shortcomings are still so fresh in their minds and people tend to be voting 'against' a government rather than 'for' an opposition. Already in this thread we have folk forgetting just how unpopular Brown's government was. I'm sure many Tory backbenchers were irritated that Cameron didn't do just that.

So Clegg's options were - coalition with some influence but never a veto, or a re-run of the election (even if there was a short period of Tory minority government) where there was a very strong possibilty of Tory majority. Coalition with Labour had poor numbers and a hugely unpopular partner, so a likely shorter shelf life than even a minority Tory government.

This is the sort of stuff that happens with hung results - why should we be surprised? You ought to see some of the horse trading that has to happen in countries with PR if you think this is bad. But two things are certain in coalition and some people seem to struggle with this. You don't get to deliver your total manifesto even if you are the larger partner in a coalition and secondly, as a minority partner you don't get to stop the majority partner from delivering more of theirs.

 

[matthewr]

The Libs/LibDems are exactly where they always have been, the issue is that Labour has shifted all over the map over recent decades, e.g. it was well to the left of the Libs under Wilson, Callaghan etc, lurched far to the right and became another Tory party under Blair (privatisation, PFI, authoritarianism, US Republican foreign policy, faith schools etc etc) and doesn't really know where the hell it is right now!

I think you have got your orange tinted spectacles on here. The Libs shifted markedly to the Right following publication of the Orange Book in 2004; and the policies and changes this brought to the LibDems in the few years after that formed the basis of their coalition with the Tories in 2010. Without that shift it's very unlikely that they would have formed a government with the Tories (or the Tories would have wanted them).

I suppose you could argue that moved back to their Economically Liberal roots from the 1890s and that the Socially Liberal party they have been prior to the Orange Book. But there is certainly a reason they were widely lampooned as sandal wearing, Muesli munching, University lecturers before that

 

[tqineil]

306 Conservative
258 Labour
57 Liberal Democrat

326 for a majority. I think even Brown could do that sum.

Paul

As Sinn Fein don't take their seats then the number is somewhat lower than that I thought?

 

[Tony L]

This is the sort of stuff that happens with hung results - why should we be surprised? You ought to see some of the horse trading that has to happen in countries with PR if you think this is bad. But two things are certain in coalition and some people seem to struggle with this. You don't get to deliver your total manifesto even if you are the larger partner in a coalition and secondly, as a minority partner you don't get to stop the majority partner from delivering more of theirs.

This is exactly what many of us want. The whole point of a democracy/consensus politics is the extremes are removed from the equation. My ideal would be a free vote on everything, i.e. remove the party stranglehold and allow those we have elected to actually represent us proportionately. It would largely remove the prospect of extreme or stupid ideologies gaining any traction as the majority always resides in the centre-ground regardless of party/tie colour. The problems always occur when a party that is too far left or right is allowed to carry out ideological changes unchecked.

 

[matthewr]

Also unless I am going mad, there was a serious consideration given to the idea of a Lab / Lib coalition as I recall all that stuff about Brown stepping aside to make it easier.

Which raises a point about potential LabLib coalitions next time around. Unless Clegg loses his seat it's hard to see him stepping aside and he is much more likely to want a coalition with the Tories than with Labour. Which is why he (and the right wing press) are so keen on this largest single party first stuff even though there is no reason for him to do that.

 

[matthewr]

Excellent summary of the arithmetic this time around here:

1) Con 323+ (Lab 227-) seats - Simple Conservative government

2) Con between 310 and 322 seats (Lab 240-228) - Coalition continues.

If you add the right bloc to 310 you get 323. In this case the Conservatives could shun the LibDems, but I suspect they will prefer to continue to work with the LibDems than having to rely on the right bloc, and the LibDems would find the attractions of continuing in government too strong to say no.

3) Con between 286 and 309 seats (Lab 264-241) - LibDems decide.

In this situation the LibDems have indicated they would ‘talk to the Conservatives first’, but in principle they could go either way: see below.

4) Lab between 265 and 298 (Con 285-252) - Labour SNP understanding.

265 plus the left bloc of 58 gets to 323. Would the LibDems get a look in? There is a possibility near the Lab 265 mark, where Labour might want to avoid the chance of one of the smaller left block parties causing difficulties. But it is not clear why Labour would want a coalition with the LibDems in this case, rather than something similar to their SNP understanding.

5) Labour between 299 and 322 (Con 251-228) - Labour choice

Labour would still have the option of an SNP arrangement, but it could alternatively form a coalition, or make an arrangement, with the LibDems. Some suspect Labour would find the politics of not being dependent on the SNP attractive, but they would probably want a new LibDem leader in exchange.

6) Lab 323+ seats - Simple Labour government.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/from-seats-to-governments-uk-general.html

 

[Paul R]

As Sinn Fein don't take their seats then the number is somewhat lower than that I thought?

5 Sinn Fein and the speaker. Perhaps you can squeak by with 323?

Which still leaves Labour/LD well short.

One of the themes last time was stability, so that's why we now have fixed terms. Con/LD was the only viable combination and formal coalition probably wasn't actually in Cameron's party political interest.

I think the outcome is going to be interesting, but which ever way, unless there's a miracle, Scotland is gone. Probably down the plug hole.

Paul

 

[matthewr]

If you want to vote on the basis of economic competence, then you should definitely not be voting Tory or LibDem.

Given the size of the mistake [by David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander] - lost resources worth on average at least £4000 for each UK household - calling [the non-coverage of this] a media cover-up is hardly an exaggeration.

Let’s be absolutely clear: this £4000 figure is not just the opinion of one economist. It is based on analysis by the OBR, which the media is happy to treat as authoritative on most occasions. The OBR say austerity reduced GDP growth by 1% in both financial years 2010-11 and 2011-12. With no significant growth in 2012, that means a total output cost of at least 5% of GDP, which is about £1,500 per person or £4,000 per household. The only serious challenges I have seen of this analysis are that the numbers are too small. My own estimate of the total cost of austerity would be considerably higher, but I tend to use the OBR based figure because the OBR rightly has authority.

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/uk-mediamacro-myths-introduction.html

(Although you will need to read your copy of the New Statesman for the full article).

 

[Joe Hutch]

(Although you will need to read your copy of the New Statesman for the full article).

I stopped buying the Staggers after Auberon Waugh left.