Bolitics The New Condem Government

[avfc89]

The Liberal Democrats have completely sold their ethics for a slice of power; It will be extremely interesting to see how they behave in the next general election, which I hope is called sooner rather than later.

[Jon]

On the subject of party politicals, I can't wait for the next Liberal one. I mean, where on earth do they go with it? Hey, vote for us again and we'll actually do what we promised last time! Hey, vote for us and we'll do what we **** well like! Hey, vote for us and we'll pop your concerns into the Clegg randomiser and see what pops out! Hey, vote for us.....hello?hello? is anyone still watching?

The Liberal Democrats have completely sold their ethics for a slice of power; It will be extremely interesting to see how they behave in the next general election, which I hope is called sooner rather than later.

They are absolutely foooked. Completely. Clegg has killed them.

What a fecker.

There will be so many voters like myself who will not vote for them again. They're buggered.

UNLESS - come May, after the referendum on PR, win or lose, they walk ...

[Gringo]

The Liberal Democrats have completely sold their ethics for a slice of power; It will be extremely interesting to see how they behave in the next general election, which I hope is called sooner rather than later.

Unlike labour who gained total power by kissing rupert's butt and giving pensioner's a 75 pence a week rise. I know that's a line gideon used, but it was gordon who gave him the ammunition. At that time I was disgusted with labour. Labour sold out on the nhs, privatising services, pfi schemes so the lovely hedge funds and venture capitalists could make profits, guiding the regulators to be soft because they failed to understand the risks. Thye sold out on ethical foreign policy because they wanted to garner respect from the US of A. They sold out on nuclear planning - literally months before announcing new nuclear power stations, they privatised the state owned design authority.

Labour sold out their ethics to nulabour. If they had relented and ditched gordo back at the start of the year we would have a lib-lab coallition now.

They sold out to the largest threat the UK democracy - rupert, having him around to lunch once a month - I used to be accused of being obsessed by murdoch by the nulabourites in those days. How times change.

[Gringo]

UNLESS - come May, after the referendum on PR, win or lose, they walk ...

They won't. Clegg has signed them up for the full deal. If the coallition collapses it will be due to other factors.

[leviramsey]

Jon - Interesting how the Tory supporters always seem to try and justify Murdoch by saying "its OK he supported Blair".

I am struggling to find any reference to VT'ers where they welcomed this support. Maybe you can show when this happened? Murdoch's words this week re Thatcher showed more about him and the policies that he and Cameron follow than we have seen for a long time. Rather than deflect (again) why not try and defend or comment on his polices and his way of political influence.

I'm not defending Murdoch's influence over British politics, it is profoundly damaging to our democracy imo. All I'm doing is pointing out the fact that it has been that way for at least 25 years, and although you may not have specifically praised his support of Labour you certainly didn't come out saying that it was bad thing. In effect Labour's (and their supporters) silent acquiescence to his previous support makes your anger now seem a little manufactured.

Are you at all surprised?

This graph, while from the USA, perhaps shows the same phenomenon in partisanship:

One need not be reminded of what happened in US politics from autumn 2006 to the present...

[Jon]

UNLESS - come May, after the referendum on PR, win or lose, they walk ...

They won't. Clegg has signed them up for the full deal. If the coallition collapses it will be due to other factors.

If that is that case, it will be then down to individual MP's walking, which I have no doubt they will do (as much to save their own hides as anything else)

[leviramsey]

If that is that case, it will be then down to individual MP's walking, which I have no doubt they will do (as much to save their own hides as anything else)

That assumes that a sufficient portion of LibDem voters in the constituencies where the LibDems win prefer Labour to the Tories.

The LibDems have the interesting situation of doing better in Parliament the lower the vote total is (which would be consistent with a core vote in a few places and a large amount of voters who swing to them elsewhere but not to the extent that they win anything). That the LibDems tend to do best in the more affluent & rural constituencies (isn't Sheffield Hallam one of the wealthiest few percent of constituencies?), in a bit of commonality with the Tories perhaps indicates that the LibDem voters who actually elect MPs prefer the Tories to Labour (especially a Labour that is easier to cast as in thrall to the unions than New Labour was), though it could also be consistent with tactical voting in Tory-leaning constituencies to keep the Tories out.

It may be that if Labour goes further left under Milliband that there's room for an SDP to reform/separate from the LibDems and get surviving New Labourite MPs to defect.

[peterms]

For those who see the Libs position as a complete about-turn from their previous position, there's an interesting piece in the LRB, referencing something called the "Orange Book" which Clegg, Cable, Laws etc contributed to a few years back. The author says that what Clegg is doing now is entirely consistent with the line he has been proposing for some time, and that he hasn't suddenly changed direction.

From that perspective, the chances of him deciding that he's making too many compromises and selling out too much appear slimmer than if he was coming from the school of liberal thought most of us assume was the case.

Too long to quote in full, but here's the link, and here's an extract.

The Orange Book liberals were avowedly anti-conservative. The principal target of their critique of British politics was not the free-market right, however, but the powerful social democratic strand in their own party. The influx from the SDP that followed the Labour split in 1981 had reinforced a tradition that goes back to Beveridge and Lloyd George. For the liberals who were part of this tradition – the majority of the party over the past few decades – the free market was simply one way of organising the economy rather than the way the economy organises itself in the absence of government intervention. Far from embodying liberty, markets often worked against personal autonomy. When that was the case they had to be constrained for the sake of freedom. Again, the distribution of income and wealth that the market produced was neither self-evidently fair nor always socially beneficial. If the distribution became too unequal, or damaged society in other ways, government had to intervene. There was nothing intrinsically valuable in the market itself.

In an agenda-setting speech, delivered at the LSE in January 2008, Clegg had signalled his firm rejection of this kind of liberalism. The state was necessary to ensure proper funding of public services such as health and education, he allowed; but once it had done that, government should ‘back off’ and allow services to be supplied privately. He repeated this message on many occasions, but few in his party seem to have realised the nature of the shift that was underway. What Clegg and his fellow market liberals were engineering was a fundamental reorientation in the party’s values. Instead of the type of liberalism exemplified by Hobhouse and Keynes, which accepted that the market had to be curbed when it failed to benefit society, the party was sold a liberalism in which the market became the benchmark by which society would be judged. Rather than being assessed according to standards of freedom and equality, the market became the fundamental norm from which any departure would in future have to be justified.

Among Liberal Democrat activists and some on the Labour left, Clegg is often accused of compromising his principles and selling out for the sake of power. The charge is absurd, for the Con-Lib programme is in many respects a straightforward application of Clegg’s brand of liberalism. Very little compromise was necessary. The Liberal Democrat leader has few reasons to feel uncomfortable with a government that is implementing much of the programme he urged on his own party. Just as much as Blair and Cameron, Clegg aims to replace British social democracy with a version of Thatcher’s market-based settlement.

[peterms]

Councils plan for exodus of poor families from London

• Benefit cuts force officials to book up B&B accommodation

• More than 200,000 may leave capital in 'social cleansing'

Ministers were accused last night of deliberately driving poor people out of wealthy inner cities as London councils revealed they were preparing a mass exodus of low-income families from the capital because of coalition benefit cuts.

Representatives of London boroughs told a meeting of MPs last week that councils have already block-booked bed and breakfasts and other private accommodation outside the capital – from Hastings, on the south coast, to Reading to the west and Luton to the north – to house those who will be priced out of the London market.

Councils in the capital are warning that 82,000 families – more than 200,000 people – face losing their homes because private landlords, enjoying a healthy rental market buoyed by young professionals who cannot afford to buy, will not cut their rents to the level of caps imposed by ministers.

The controversy follows comment last week by Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, who said the unemployed should "get on the bus" and look for work. Another unnamed minister said the benefit changes would usher in a phenomenon similar to the Highland Clearances in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when landlords evicted thousands of tenants from their homes in the north of Scotland.

In a sign that housing benefit cuts are fast becoming the most sensitive political issue for the coalition, Jon Cruddas, the Labour MP for Dagenham, last night accused the government of deliberate social engineering.

"It is an exercise in social and economic cleansing," he said, claiming that families would be thrown into turmoil, with children having to move school and those in work having to travel long distances to their jobs. "It is tantamount to cleansing the poor out of rich areas – a brutal and shocking piece of social engineering," Cruddas added.

The National Housing Federation's chief executive, David Orr, described the housing benefit cuts as "truly shocking". He said: "Unless ministers urgently reconsider these punitive cuts, we could see more people sleeping rough than at any stage during the last 30 years."

The issue is fuelling tension inside the coalition. Simon Hughes, the Liberal Democrat deputy leader, said last night he would table amendments to change housing benefit rules. He said: "I would fully expect to be one of those putting forward proposals for changes in the housing benefit rules, particularly for London."

Under a clampdown on housing benefit, the chancellor, George Osborne, announced that housing benefit will be capped from April next year at £400 a week for a four-bedroom house, £340 for a three-bedroom property, £290 for two bedrooms and £250 for a one-bedroom property. In addition, from October 2011 payments will be capped at 30% of average local rents.

At a meeting of the Commons work and pensions select committee last Wednesday, the day Osborne announced £81bn of cuts in the spending review, MPs were told by London council chiefs that the housing benefit cuts could have devastating results.

Nigel Minto, head of sustainable communities at London Councils, who works closely with the capital's housing directors, told the committee that since June London councils had been "procuring bed and breakfast accommodation" in outer London and beyond. The committee was told similar problems would occur in other cities with high-priced property such as Brighton and Oxford.

Jeremy Swain, chief executive of the homelessness charity Thames Reach, said he was particularly worried about the impact on numbers sleeping rough in London. "We have reduced rough sleeping dramatically and we have a target of zero rough sleeping in London by 2012. For the first time I'm thinking that we will not achieve that," he said.

Karen Buck, shadow minister for work and pensions, said: "The sheer scale and extremity of the coalition proposals means almost a million households are affected across the country."

In today's Observer, Labour leader Ed Miliband says last week's spending review took Britain back to the 80s. "This was the week that took the compassion out of David Cameron's claim to compassionate Conservatism," he writes, accusing the Tories of displaying "arrogant ideological swagger".

But last night Cameron insisted the cuts were tough but fair. "Departments have to make savings. I don't underestimate how difficult this will be. But we are doing what we are doing because it is the right thing to do – right by our economy, right for our country."

A DWP spokesperson said: "The current way that it [housing benefit] is administered is unfair. It's not right that some families on benefits have been able to live in homes that most working families could not afford. However, we are absolutely committed to supporting the most vulnerable families and have tripled our discretionary housing payments to provide a safety net for those who need it."

[drat01]

Jon - Interesting how the Tory supporters always seem to try and justify Murdoch by saying "its OK he supported Blair".

I am struggling to find any reference to VT'ers where they welcomed this support. Maybe you can show when this happened? Murdoch's words this week re Thatcher showed more about him and the policies that he and Cameron follow than we have seen for a long time. Rather than deflect (again) why not try and defend or comment on his polices and his way of political influence.

ahem

i dont see how you can critise murdoch here when he did the same for the last 12 years ian, im afraid your wide of the mark here

Sorry Dem you are not getting the point at all. Just because Murdoch at the time supported Blair et al - and I am still of the opinion that was a lot of back stabbing against his old allies in the Tory party rather than a following of any Labour policy of the time - does not get away from the fact that as we saw again this week, his deeply held beliefs are those of Thtacherism and he sees a lot of what Cameron is doing as an extension of that.

Of course I can and will criticise Murdoch, it's not wide of the mark at all. In fact if anything its pretty much spot on. Murdoch went public this week with some endorsements of polices that this Gvmt are also following, those of Thatcher. His influence is well outside of what is healthy on not only UK but also world politics. His media empire operates outside of the law on occasions as we have seen with the phone hacking. He has held many private meetings with senior members of the Tory party it is widely reported Reuters and especially Cameron.

Murdoch as a businessman has a lot to benefit from the Tory party policies that are seemingly favouring him and his ownership battle re Sky and the whole BBC thing.

Again you seem to think that because he came out and supported Blair that somehow negates any sort of criticism towards him, I don't understand that logic

[OutByEaster?]

As we saw again this week, his deeply held beliefs are those of Thtacherism and he sees a lot of what Cameron is doing as an extension of that.

Same reason he was with Blair then?

[Awol]

For those who see the Libs position as a complete about-turn from their previous position, there's an interesting piece in the LRB, referencing something called the "Orange Book" which Clegg, Cable, Laws etc contributed to a few years back......

Given that, what exactly did the Lib Dems on here who are now saying that Clegg has abandoned his principles think they were actually voting for? Not trying to be snide btw, it's a genuine question.

[Gringo]

For those who see the Libs position as a complete about-turn from their previous position, there's an interesting piece in the LRB, referencing something called the "Orange Book" which Clegg, Cable, Laws etc contributed to a few years back......

Given that, what exactly did the Lib Dems on here who are now saying that Clegg has abandoned his principles think they were actually voting for? Not trying to be snide btw, it's a genuine question.

At the time the orange book was libdem's answer to nulabour - some in the party fearing they were going to be squeezed out by a future tory revival with labour having already taking the right of centre position. They feared Kennedy was taking them to the left - and he went on a year later to deliver their best election results in living memory. Despite that the orange book mob forced him out.

[chrisp65]

I don't have a great deal of knowledge on the Libs inner workings and internal power set up. But I did think that kennedy was forced out because he was constantly pissed to the point of being a regular no show at functions due to 'ill health'.

[Gringo]

25 MPs threatened to resign unless he did. When the orange book mob's man failed to win the ensuing leadership election they picked upon the winner's age until he too resigned 18 months later.

[leviramsey]

Of course Charles Kennedy also contributed to the Orange Book...

All the ideas [in the Orange Book] are are compatible with our liberal heritage.

Prospect"]

Indeed, most of the contributions—from the likes of Clegg, Huhne and Cable—were uncontroversial. Cable’s chapter called for a greater use of the private and third sectors in the provision of public services. But Laws’s contribution put the group’s case most frankly. His opening essay mocked a list of Lib Dem statist policies: “the compulsory micro-chipping of dogs… bans on animals in circuses, and even a ban on giving goldfish as prizes in fairs.” In a further chapter he suggested that the party should examine replacing the NHS with a system based on social insurance. And in one barbed passage he asked “how did it come about that over the decades up to the 1980s the Liberal belief in economic liberalism was progressively eroded by forms of soggy socialism and corporatism?” An article in the Independent heralded the essays as a “revolution” from a group of “young turks who are more Blairite than Mr Blair.” Internally, the Orange Bookers stood accused of creating disunity in the run-up to the 2005 election, and the book’s launch, planned for the party’s 2004 conference, was cancelled.

In the general election that followed, the Lib Dems won 62 seats—the party’s biggest ever haul. On the surface, this seemed a rebuke to the reformers. But worries about the party’s leadership and ideological direction quickly became more widely shared. Kennedy admitted that the 2005 manifesto had been something of a “shopping list.” Concerns on the centre right increased when leftist MP Paul Holmes defeated the centrist Matthew Taylor to become party chairman. But doubts about Kennedy’s strategy were eclipsed by those about his drinking. In one grim Newsnight exchange Jeremy Paxman began an interview with Kennedy by asking: “Does it trouble you that every single politician to whom we’ve spoken in preparing for this interview said the same thing: ‘You’re interviewing Charles Kennedy? I hope he’s sober’?” Frustration over Kennedy’s style were not limited to the party’s centre right. Duncan Brack, a social-liberal thinker, later wrote that, without Iraq as a rallying cry, the “hollowness at the centre of his leadership would have been exposed much earlier.” He concluded: “The problem with Kennedy was not alcohol; it was that he was not capable of being an effective leader.”

Kennedy finally resigned in January 2006, and an immediate split opened up as Clegg backed Menzies Campbell for leader, while Chris Huhne had a tilt at the crown himself. This deepened at the next leadership election, after Campbell’s inglorious year as leader. Clegg had long been seen as leader-in-waiting by the party’s centre right, but Huhne ran an energetic campaign, appealing to the more numerous left. In an attack titled “Calamity Clegg,” he hinted darkly at his opponent’s support for education vouchers and Trident. Some in Clegg’s team pushed him to take a more aggressive modernising tone. But he played it safe, and it worked, just—Clegg won by barely 500 votes out of a total of 41,465 cast.

Having been elected without challenging his party, Clegg needed to define himself while preparing for a general election many thought was imminent. An early indication of his views came in a speech on public services in January 2008, which laid out a vision in which “the state must back off and allow the genius of grassroots innovation, diversity and experimentation” in schools and hospitals. Taking on those in his party, and especially within its local government base, Clegg argued that he wanted to develop “a new liberal model of schools that are non-selective, under local government strategic oversight but not run by the council.” Six months later Clegg pushed his party again, this time on tax—publishing a policy document called “Make It Happen,” outlining plans for cuts in public spending and tax cuts for the least well off.

[Gringo]

Of course Charles Kennedy also contributed to the Orange Book...

After the event almost - he wrote the foreword in order to show the party was not split - and then told the orange book mob that their essays were very nice, but were not going to become libdem policy under his leadership. At the time of the book coming out it was very much seen as a challenge to his leadership and policies.

[avfc89]

The Liberal Democrats have completely sold their ethics for a slice of power; It will be extremely interesting to see how they behave in the next general election, which I hope is called sooner rather than later.

Unlike labour who gained total power by kissing rupert's butt and giving pensioner's a 75 pence a week rise. I know that's a line gideon used, but it was gordon who gave him the ammunition. At that time I was disgusted with labour. Labour sold out on the nhs, privatising services, pfi schemes so the lovely hedge funds and venture capitalists could make profits, guiding the regulators to be soft because they failed to understand the risks. Thye sold out on ethical foreign policy because they wanted to garner respect from the US of A. They sold out on nuclear planning - literally months before announcing new nuclear power stations, they privatised the state owned design authority.

Labour sold out their ethics to nulabour. If they had relented and ditched gordo back at the start of the year we would have a lib-lab coallition now.

They sold out to the largest threat the UK democracy - rupert, having him around to lunch once a month - I used to be accused of being obsessed by murdoch by the nulabourites in those days. How times change.

I can't argue with your view. New Labour have done many thing which I didn't personally agree with.

[peterms]

The Liberal Democrats have completely sold their ethics for a slice of power; It will be extremely interesting to see how they behave in the next general election, which I hope is called sooner rather than later.

Unlike labour who gained total power by kissing rupert's butt and giving pensioner's a 75 pence a week rise. I know that's a line gideon used, but it was gordon who gave him the ammunition. At that time I was disgusted with labour. Labour sold out on the nhs, privatising services, pfi schemes so the lovely hedge funds and venture capitalists could make profits, guiding the regulators to be soft because they failed to understand the risks. Thye sold out on ethical foreign policy because they wanted to garner respect from the US of A. They sold out on nuclear planning - literally months before announcing new nuclear power stations, they privatised the state owned design authority.

Labour sold out their ethics to nulabour. If they had relented and ditched gordo back at the start of the year we would have a lib-lab coallition now.

They sold out to the largest threat the UK democracy - rupert, having him around to lunch once a month - I used to be accused of being obsessed by murdoch by the nulabourites in those days. How times change.

I can't argue with your view. New Labour have done many thing which I didn't personally agree with.

I think a lot of people feel the same way. They have alienated what was traditionally core support in the pursuit of other votes. Now the other votes have peeled away, the previously dependable core support is less visible as well. Maybe some people feel taken for granted, as though the Blair-Mandelson calculation was on the lines that the core support had nowhere else to go, so would swallow the new policies even if they didn't like them.

If the Libs are doing a similar "reinvention" of their party, will they be able to avoid those mistakes? The reaction of Liberal activists over the next few months will be fascinating.

[Awol]

If the Libs are doing a similar "reinvention" of their party, will they be able to avoid those mistakes? The reaction of Liberal activists over the next few months will be fascinating.

Indeed. A few years hence it's not that hard to imagine the Orange Book Libs Dems, Tory-lite Cameroons and Labour Blairites all sharing a platform, with Right wing Tories + UKIP on one side and Lefitist Labour and Lib Dem MP's on the other.