The Jeremy Corbyn thread

[LlcoolJ]

Do you think history will show that the Lib Dems actually did a decent job in coalition government? Left-leaners on NSC were declaring the government a car crash waiting to happen in the days and weeks immediately following the 2010 General Election, yet it held together for the full five year term with Clegg and co moderating many Tory policies for the better.

Nick Clegg was in a ridiculously difficult position and I think he did as well as anyone could. He had always struck me as a decent and honourable chap, and nothing he was involved in changed that view.

Completely agree. The pummeling he and the Lib Dems got just proves how so many people don't understand politics at all. They had to back the Tories on some policies that they didn't agree with in order to get others through, including the most important one (changing the voting system so that more people's votes actually counted) which they were then predictably stabbed in the back over. They were the junior partner in a coalition and yet people seem to think that they could do as they liked. That's not how it works FFS.

You only have to look at what was done while they were in government compared to the total shambles since to see what they actually achieved.

However, as much as I'd like to see a more liberal party become the opposition I fear there are still too many who believe the sound bites (Clegg bad, Lib Dems sold out etc) than the facts. Nobody cares about facts any more anyway.....

 

[Buzzer]

Do you think history will show that the Lib Dems actually did a decent job in coalition government? Left-leaners on NSC were declaring the government a car crash waiting to happen in the days and weeks immediately following the 2010 General Election, yet it held together for the full five year term with Clegg and co moderating many Tory policies for the better.

This has been over-played but I think the reality is that Cameron's politics were moderate enough that they didn't need any Lib Dem moderation. In government in 2010-15, the Lib Dem ministers were an irrelevance and none more so than Clegg.

 

[LlcoolJ]

This has been over-played but I think the reality is that Cameron's politics were moderate enough that they didn't need any Lib Dem moderation. In government in 2010-15, the Lib Dem ministers were an irrelevance and none more so than Clegg.

This is absolute bollocks though isn't it. Tories themselves admitted that they were sick of the Lib Dems preventing them from doing what they wanted.

 

[LlcoolJ]

E.g.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/04/together-how-lib-dems-battled-restrain-tory-monster

 

[Simster]

This is absolute bollocks though isn't it. Tories themselves admitted that they were sick of the Lib Dems preventing them from doing what they wanted.

Exactly. I remember David Davies whinging that the Tories should get to make four 5ths of policy decisions because of the relative number of seats they had.

 

[Buzzer]

This is absolute bollocks though isn't it. Tories themselves admitted that they were sick of the Lib Dems preventing them from doing what they wanted.

No it's not. I will try to find the article, I think it was in the Spectator, where a senior No 10 aide admitted that Cameron's little black book of things that he couldn't push through because of the Lib Dems was just an easy way of Cameron batting back the right-wing of his party with policies they wanted to see and he was ambivalent about at best and could put off until never.

 

[Buzzer]

Exactly. I remember David Davies whinging that the Tories should get to make four 5ths of policy decisions because of the relative number of seats they had.

That would be David Davis, the right-winger arguing about the UK needing more right-wing policies when we had a nominally (although never in practice) One-Nation leader who didn't want such radical reforms. Cameron used the Lib Dems in office as an excuse not to push through policies that the right of the the party wanted rather than face the ideological battles that Major had with his own party but that's not the same as saying the Lib Dems had a moderating effect. They were a convenient patsy.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

That would be David Davis, the right-winger arguing about the UK needing more right-wing policies when we had a nominally (although never in practice) One-Nation leader who didn't want such radical reforms. Cameron used the Lib Dems in office as an excuse not to push through policies that the right of the the party wanted rather than face the ideological battles that Major had with his own party but that's not the same as saying the Lib Dems had a moderating effect. They were a convenient patsy.

Matter of opinion but probably amounts to the same thing, don't you think ? After all the implication of what you are saying is that DC would have taken on the right wing if he didn't have the LDs. I think that unlikely given the path of least resistance he followed on all/most other issues.

 

[LlcoolJ]

Matter of opinion but probably amounts to the same thing, don't you think ? After all the implication of what you are saying is that DC would have taken on the right wing if he didn't have the LDs. I think that unlikely given the path of least resistance he followed on all/most other issues.

And what has happened since!

 

[Buzzer]

If...as LLCoolJ, Simster and Bozza have said that the Lib Dems acted as a block on many outlying policies and forced the Tories into the middle ground it would mean that the Lib Dems having quite a bit of sway in the last Government. Why then, did the Lib Dems completely back-track and embarrass themselves as a party and humiliate Nick Clegg personally by breaking his one key election promise in the 2010 election by supporting increases in tuition fees?

Surely, if the Lib Dems had all this power they would at least have influenced and watered-down the tuition fees increases issue which was according to them, one of their headline pledges. Nick Clegg could...actually SHOULD...have made it a make or break part of his agreement to forming a government with the Tories but he didn't do that and neither did he stop the increases even knowing how bad it would look for him having written down his promise previously. Forget about all the wacky right-wing policies on benefits or suchlike, the entire Lib Dem in government had a chance to force the Tories to back down on tuition fees and they did nothing.

How is this possible that the Tories were able to steamroll over the Lib Dems so easily on such an important point? It would suggest that either they, the Lib Dems, were more interested in power rather than policy or that the Lib Dems weren't as big an influence in Government as they thought they were. Either way, the Lib Dems don't come out of that looking fit to form a coalition again any time soon.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

It's difficult to know [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION] but perhaps they decided that additional spending pledges couldn't be part of the coalition agreement. Perhaps during the negotiations they decided to prioritize other issues. Whatever it was I don't think it rules them out of future Government because when a coalition is formed there can't be any red lines. It is something completely different from what's on offer during the election and comes about because collectively the voters have decided they don't want what's on offer from any one of the parties. You may or may not be correct about LD influence but I don't think the student fees issue is evidence one way or another.
I would add that there is an intangible benefit to be gained from simply being around people with differing opinions. I have seen interviews with Tories who talked about forging close political relationships with Liberals. Surely this must have altered approaches to problems. Bringing it back to JC , I have seen someone on this thread say he only mixes with fellow believers because everyone else is greedy and selfish !! This is a very JC approach where they all re-enforce each others opinions and are left incapable of interacting with other opinions without resorting to abuse i.e. they have no understanding of the business of Government.

 

[Buzzer]

It's difficult to know @Buzzer but perhaps they decided that additional spending pledges couldn't be part of the coalition agreement. Perhaps during the negotiations they decided to prioritize other issues. Whatever it was I don't think it rules them out of future Government because when a coalition is formed there can't be any red lines. It is something completely different from what's on offer during the election and comes about because collectively the voters have decided they don't want what's on offer from any one of the parties. You may or may not be correct about LD influence but I don't think the student fees issue is evidence one way or another.

The over-riding Lib Dem legacy of the last Government is that they backed down on a cast-iron guarantee that Clegg gave, in pursuit of power and were annihilated at the polls because of that. If, as you say, they decided to prioritise elsewhere then their lack of foresight into how badly this would play is yet another reason not to trust their political nous.

And I'll say again, it IS evidence of their power whilst in the coalition. If a party in power has no influence on a key policy matter that they have staked a lot of political reputation on then they clearly have little real power.

 

[Chicken Run]

Do you think history will show that the Lib Dems actually did a decent job in coalition government? Left-leaners on NSC were declaring the government a car crash waiting to happen in the days and weeks immediately following the 2010 General Election, yet it held together for the full five year term with Clegg and co moderating many Tory policies for the better.

Nick Clegg was in a ridiculously difficult position and I think he did as well as anyone could. He had always struck me as a decent and honourable chap, and nothing he was involved in changed that view.

Agreed, and right now there are votes to be one over the next 4 years and I believe the LD will seize the moment, the current joke of an opposition will see 10 years of conservative government if they continue the route they are treading!

 

[beorhthelm]

This is absolute bollocks though isn't it. Tories themselves admitted that they were sick of the Lib Dems preventing them from doing what they wanted.

i think its spot on observation. Lib Dems may have had some moderating effect in areas, they were also used as cover for Cameroon/Osborne to do or not do things their back benchers weren't entirely happy about. remember, those two are/were seen as modernisers and if it weren't for fiscal policy might have been.

 

[Machiavelli]

The over-riding Lib Dem legacy of the last Government is that they backed down on a cast-iron guarantee that Clegg gave, in pursuit of power and were annihilated at the polls because of that. If, as you say, they decided to prioritise elsewhere then their lack of foresight into how badly this would play is yet another reason not to trust their political nous.

And I'll say again, it IS evidence of their power whilst in the coalition. If a party in power has no influence on a key policy matter that they have staked a lot of political reputation on then they clearly have little real power.

There is another scenario, and that's senior Lib Dems c2010 had gone cold on the tuition fee pledge due to the changed circumstances post-2008. Just about all of them have said this.
I've only come into this discussion late, but the Lib Dems did have an influence on the Tories, and that was convenient for Cameron and co, but they made major errors, not only tuition fees, but also the perception of a lust for power, and that awful AV referendum too.

 

[biddles911]

There is another scenario, and that's senior Lib Dems c2010 had gone cold on the tuition fee pledge due to the changed circumstances post-2008. Just about all of them have said this.
I've only come into this discussion late, but the Lib Dems did have an influence on the Tories, and that was convenient for Cameron and co, but they made major errors, not only tuition fees, but also the perception of a lust for power, and that awful AV referendum too.

It was a coalition so, by definition, compromises were inevitable and the LDs were not going to get all they wanted nor were the Tories.

I think Clegg did a decent job in difficult circumstances.

Problem for the LDs is that their core support are a bunch of dreamers who want utopia, which is really easy to imagine until faced with the realities of power hence their getting slaughtered at the election.

Sounds a bit familiar given the present sad plight of the Labour Party!

I hope the LDs bounce back and become a credible opposition again otherwise the Tories get a free ride for a decade or more!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[alfredmizen]

His "support" for the IRA? Really? By advocating a dialogue to stop a blood bath? A dialogue that eventually came to fruition? Re-writing history much.

[MENTION=25211]midnight_rendezvous[/MENTION],still waiting for you to answer post 1767, if I didn't know better I'd think you're not answering because you've been proven totally and utterly wrong.

 

[Postman Pat]

So today's the day we find out if the Turkeys will be voting for Christmas.

Can't see anything else other than another Corbyn win.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Corbyn to win easily followed by the 80% of Labour MP's who said they had absolutely no confidence in him suddenly arguing he is now taking Labour in a winning direction, all united , one big happy family, government in waiting ....

Jewish Labour MP Ruth Smeeth to take bodyguard to party conference

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-online-jeremy-corbyn-trolling-a7319906.html

 

[whitelion]

BBC2 - 11am covering this.