Clegged out
September 8, 2015 12:47 AM Subscribe
All this earnest discussion of Presentation and Equidistance only gets you so far. What a party actually does matters: not just media and campaign strategies.
Having read a couple of books on the Coalition it's clear that the Liberal Democrats didn't make an effort to moderate austerity. In their negotiations with Labour, the Lib Dems pushed for much quicker spending reductions than were in either party's manifestos.
What the Lib Dems sought from the coalition agreement was two big things. First, the referendum on Alternative Vote. Second, proportional representation for the House of Lords.
The benefit of both of these was to the Liberal Democrat Party and their MPs. AV would have boosted the number of MPs even if they lost vote share. A PR House of Lords would have provided secure lifeboats for voted-out MPs.
The Lib Dems thought that they could get away with enraging the voters by changing the system to favour them anyway.
What happened in reality was that first they lost the referendum. Then the Tory backbenches rebelled (or were encouraged) to vote against Lords reform.
The Lib Dems staked everything on their two gambles, and lost both.
If you put try to put your party before your country, people aren't going to cry when your party suffers.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:22 AM on September 8, 2015 [22 favorites]
Having read a couple of books on the Coalition it's clear that the Liberal Democrats didn't make an effort to moderate austerity. In their negotiations with Labour, the Lib Dems pushed for much quicker spending reductions than were in either party's manifestos.
What the Lib Dems sought from the coalition agreement was two big things. First, the referendum on Alternative Vote. Second, proportional representation for the House of Lords.
The benefit of both of these was to the Liberal Democrat Party and their MPs. AV would have boosted the number of MPs even if they lost vote share. A PR House of Lords would have provided secure lifeboats for voted-out MPs.
The Lib Dems thought that they could get away with enraging the voters by changing the system to favour them anyway.
What happened in reality was that first they lost the referendum. Then the Tory backbenches rebelled (or were encouraged) to vote against Lords reform.
The Lib Dems staked everything on their two gambles, and lost both.
If you put try to put your party before your country, people aren't going to cry when your party suffers.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:22 AM on September 8, 2015 [22 favorites]
Yep that's about it.
posted by GallonOfAlan at 1:22 AM on September 8, 2015
posted by GallonOfAlan at 1:22 AM on September 8, 2015
By abandoning the Lib Dems, the party's supporters showed they preferred the purity of eternal, impotent opposition to the difficult compromises that any political party must make when it tries to govern. If Labour's foolish enough t elect Jeremy Corbyn as its leader, it will be effectively be making the same decision. And what's the bloody point of that?
posted by Paul Slade at 1:44 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Paul Slade at 1:44 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
By abandoning the Lib Dems, the party's supporters showed they preferred the purity of eternal, impotent opposition to the difficult compromises that any political party must make when it tries to govern.
Except that most of the Lib Dem voters went to Labour (who were the largest party in most polls), and after that the Conservatives.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:14 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Except that most of the Lib Dem voters went to Labour (who were the largest party in most polls), and after that the Conservatives.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:14 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
By abandoning the Lib Dems, the party's supporters showed they preferred the purity of eternal, impotent opposition to the difficult compromises that any political party must make when it tries to govern.
Funny, I don't see the Tories making many compromises. They just keep pushing rightward with the other parties trailing in their wake. And they're winning.
Triangulation only gets you so far, eventually you'll Overton Window yourself into irrelevance. And any amount of muttering about getting real and accepting the world as it is and being realistic adults won't change the fact you're going to be, at best, a second-rate option for people who tell themselves nice stories about wanting a firm hand on the fiscal tiller but actually just want the poors to fuck off and die.
posted by Happy Dave at 2:17 AM on September 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
Funny, I don't see the Tories making many compromises. They just keep pushing rightward with the other parties trailing in their wake. And they're winning.
Triangulation only gets you so far, eventually you'll Overton Window yourself into irrelevance. And any amount of muttering about getting real and accepting the world as it is and being realistic adults won't change the fact you're going to be, at best, a second-rate option for people who tell themselves nice stories about wanting a firm hand on the fiscal tiller but actually just want the poors to fuck off and die.
posted by Happy Dave at 2:17 AM on September 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
Agree with all the above, but this needs adding:
Do not also forget their role in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, where their most revered Shirley Williams spoke eventually in favour of the Act, yet only twenty-four months later, despite many warnings during the passing of the bill, spoke of her dismay of its impact.
In other words, they just seem intellectually stupid. The bill that essentially killed the NHS - there is no longer a united NHS across the UK, (there's NHS England, Wales, Scotland, N Ireland - all separate organisations) - and that removed the Governments legal obligation to provide a health service (so if they wished they could just stop its funding, and we'd just have to survive) - was clear as day designed to eventually lead to full privatisation. I, and many others knew during its passing that its based upon a paper written by Oliver Letwin in 1988. If I knew that, how could all the learned LibDems in both Houses not see this?
So, quite honestly, they fully deserve to be crushed and remain crushed. Stupid, vain, and blind.
posted by rolandroland at 2:17 AM on September 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
Do not also forget their role in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, where their most revered Shirley Williams spoke eventually in favour of the Act, yet only twenty-four months later, despite many warnings during the passing of the bill, spoke of her dismay of its impact.
In other words, they just seem intellectually stupid. The bill that essentially killed the NHS - there is no longer a united NHS across the UK, (there's NHS England, Wales, Scotland, N Ireland - all separate organisations) - and that removed the Governments legal obligation to provide a health service (so if they wished they could just stop its funding, and we'd just have to survive) - was clear as day designed to eventually lead to full privatisation. I, and many others knew during its passing that its based upon a paper written by Oliver Letwin in 1988. If I knew that, how could all the learned LibDems in both Houses not see this?
So, quite honestly, they fully deserve to be crushed and remain crushed. Stupid, vain, and blind.
posted by rolandroland at 2:17 AM on September 8, 2015 [15 favorites]
A big problem was that the Lib Dems in almost every seat advertised themselves as the opposition to either the Tories or Labour.
The famous Can't Win Here! Dodgy Graphs so when it turned out that voting for the lib dems did not mean voting against the tories (or voting against labour, since it was clear they'd go into coalition with whomever) all of a sudden the whole basis of their electoral strategy made no sense.
The Conservatives can't win here! Vote Lib Dem to oppose Labour (except we'll let them in anyway)
Labour can't win here! Vote Lib Dem to oppose the Tories (except we'll let them in anyway)
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:20 AM on September 8, 2015
The famous Can't Win Here! Dodgy Graphs so when it turned out that voting for the lib dems did not mean voting against the tories (or voting against labour, since it was clear they'd go into coalition with whomever) all of a sudden the whole basis of their electoral strategy made no sense.
The Conservatives can't win here! Vote Lib Dem to oppose Labour (except we'll let them in anyway)
Labour can't win here! Vote Lib Dem to oppose the Tories (except we'll let them in anyway)
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:20 AM on September 8, 2015
This was good. Now analyze the Irish Greens disastrous coalition.
posted by CCBC at 2:30 AM on September 8, 2015
posted by CCBC at 2:30 AM on September 8, 2015
And did you exchange
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?
posted by Brian Lux at 2:37 AM on September 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
A walk on part in the war
For a lead role in a cage?
posted by Brian Lux at 2:37 AM on September 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
What the Lib Dems sought from the coalition agreement was two big things. First, the referendum on Alternative Vote. Second, proportional representation for the House of Lords.
The benefit of both of these was to the Liberal Democrat Party and their MPs. AV would have boosted the number of MPs even if they lost vote share. A PR House of Lords would have provided secure lifeboats for voted-out MPs.
The Lib Dems thought that they could get away with enraging the voters by changing the system to favour them anyway.
What happened in reality was that first they lost the referendum. Then the Tory backbenches rebelled (or were encouraged) to vote against Lords reform.
Quite. Their failure to obtain any "big wins" was crippling, and to have those two big profile losses on their docket, along with tuition fees, was terrible. It's arguable that the lib dems did prevent many of the excesses of the Tories, but these were often not very visible, and difficult to publicise.
I think Clegg was too obsessed with the idea that the economy might collapse, when it was really in no danger of doing so. As a result he wanted strong government, which meant a lack of differentiation between the lib dems and the cons from the beginning. It should be reasonable for a coalition partner to go "no, we don't agree with this particular bill, but in order to get the bills we want through we agreed to it", but Clegg would all too frequently give full throated support to whatever new measure the conservatives had done. This got really bad when Clegg started backing secret courts, something which was guarenteed anathema to his party.
The lib dems had a number of different voters. People who thought their policies were the best, people who hated politicians and people who liked a particular selection of their policies. They were always going to lose the "they're all the same" voters by going into government, but could have hung onto the others if they've managed to actually secure victories in government and not position themselves so badly. I agree with the article that splitting themselves all over government was an absolutely terrible idea. Sure, for an insider, being a minister in a branch of government sounds exciting (and I'm sure it is important!), but the public really only see the secretary of state, making whatever work a lib dem minister might be doing essentially invisible.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:38 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
The benefit of both of these was to the Liberal Democrat Party and their MPs. AV would have boosted the number of MPs even if they lost vote share. A PR House of Lords would have provided secure lifeboats for voted-out MPs.
The Lib Dems thought that they could get away with enraging the voters by changing the system to favour them anyway.
What happened in reality was that first they lost the referendum. Then the Tory backbenches rebelled (or were encouraged) to vote against Lords reform.
Quite. Their failure to obtain any "big wins" was crippling, and to have those two big profile losses on their docket, along with tuition fees, was terrible. It's arguable that the lib dems did prevent many of the excesses of the Tories, but these were often not very visible, and difficult to publicise.
I think Clegg was too obsessed with the idea that the economy might collapse, when it was really in no danger of doing so. As a result he wanted strong government, which meant a lack of differentiation between the lib dems and the cons from the beginning. It should be reasonable for a coalition partner to go "no, we don't agree with this particular bill, but in order to get the bills we want through we agreed to it", but Clegg would all too frequently give full throated support to whatever new measure the conservatives had done. This got really bad when Clegg started backing secret courts, something which was guarenteed anathema to his party.
The lib dems had a number of different voters. People who thought their policies were the best, people who hated politicians and people who liked a particular selection of their policies. They were always going to lose the "they're all the same" voters by going into government, but could have hung onto the others if they've managed to actually secure victories in government and not position themselves so badly. I agree with the article that splitting themselves all over government was an absolutely terrible idea. Sure, for an insider, being a minister in a branch of government sounds exciting (and I'm sure it is important!), but the public really only see the secretary of state, making whatever work a lib dem minister might be doing essentially invisible.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 2:38 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I can't add anything to the analysis, except that my friends who said that the Lib Dems were about as left wing as Genghis Khan's aunty were proved correct. I'm from a family with a lot of Liberal (and then Lib Dem) background, including some activism (I briefly joined in the 90s, but left quickly after discovering that my local party was full of unpleasant nutters), and it's going to be a long time, if ever, before they get that sort of core support back.
However, look on the bright side. The election isn't quite over yet, and they may yet lose one more MP. Although I doubt it, I salute the noble Orcadians behind the effort.
posted by Devonian at 2:47 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
However, look on the bright side. The election isn't quite over yet, and they may yet lose one more MP. Although I doubt it, I salute the noble Orcadians behind the effort.
posted by Devonian at 2:47 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
It's kind of weird what gets reported as success or failure in our screwed up electoral system.
2010 saw the lib dems lose seats, and yet was considered a success because they got into the coalition.
2015 saw labour increase it's vote share by over a million votes, but is counted as a crushing defeat because they lost 24 seats.
It gets weird.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:51 AM on September 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
2010 saw the lib dems lose seats, and yet was considered a success because they got into the coalition.
2015 saw labour increase it's vote share by over a million votes, but is counted as a crushing defeat because they lost 24 seats.
It gets weird.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:51 AM on September 8, 2015 [4 favorites]
Also, this guy ended up really busy on election night...
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:53 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 2:53 AM on September 8, 2015 [1 favorite]
The Lib Dems proved to be incredible naive when it came to the actual sausage making of politics and the Tories ran rings round them... It's obvious that the right wing Orange Bookers of the part were actually in charge to the dismay of their more left wing members and voters but the tuition fees and being totally out-maneuvered by the conservative re PR and The Lords was crushing. The few token gestures they actually did mange to make against austerity (was it Pupil Premium they kept banging on about?) was never going to make up for that.
I always remember a conversation I had with a Labour councellor (at a sf convention of all places) who said the Lib Dems were worst than the Tories - you always knew were you stood with the Conservative but the Lib Dems would say / do anything to get elected, often saying one thing locally whilst saying / doing something else nationally.
It's just a pity them getting smashed in the SW and the seats going Tory means it's going to be that much harder for Labour to get back in next time (I really can't see the Lib Dems recovering any time soon, if ever)
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:41 AM on September 8, 2015
I always remember a conversation I had with a Labour councellor (at a sf convention of all places) who said the Lib Dems were worst than the Tories - you always knew were you stood with the Conservative but the Lib Dems would say / do anything to get elected, often saying one thing locally whilst saying / doing something else nationally.
It's just a pity them getting smashed in the SW and the seats going Tory means it's going to be that much harder for Labour to get back in next time (I really can't see the Lib Dems recovering any time soon, if ever)
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:41 AM on September 8, 2015
And equally, some of my parents friends who are prominent Conservative party councillors hated the Lib Dems with far greater passion than they ever lavished on Labour.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:14 AM on September 8, 2015
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 4:14 AM on September 8, 2015
Everyone expects the Tories to be a bunch of heartless cunts. It's in their manifesto. They didn't expect the Lib Dems to go along with it.
posted by Talez at 4:17 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Talez at 4:17 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I have more sympathy for the LibDems than most of you lot. It’s really, *really* easy to criticise with perfect hindsight, but if you put yourself in their position back in 2010 they were put in an impossible position. The economy had just pulled back from the brink of what was perceived to be near collapse & there was a strong desire within the establishment in general that the government be seen above all else to be stable. Given that premise, coalition with Labour was impossible: the party simply didn’t have the seats and a 'rainbow coalition' with all the other minor parties would barely have pushed them over the line into a majority which would have been very difficult to hold together. The electoral arithmetic made the choices available to the LibDems: 1) Go into coalition with the Conservatives, 2) Confidence & supply with the conservatives 3) Force a second elections. (3) was not on the cards, for obvious reasons & the LibDems ended up choosing (1) over (2) on the grounds that they could more effectively neutralise some of the Conservative party’s nuttier ideas from a position inside government. (1) also led to a more stable government which ended up lasting the full five years, much to the dismay of those who were convinced it would fall apart at the first hurdle.
Given the hand available to them immediately after the election, the LibDems played it as best they could. Sometimes all you have are shitty choices & the least worst is the best possible option. Coalition with the conservatives was always going to bring with it the enormous difficulty that the electorate would assign anything good that happened to the conservatives (who would naturally claim responsibility for all the good stuff if the electorate turned out to like it) whilst anything the electorate didn’t like would clearly be the fault of those perfidious LibDems (*ahem*). A trashing at the next election was something of a foregone conclusion at this point.
Unfortunately, they then compounded the inevitable difficulties being in coalition with the Conservatives would bring with a number of horrendous errors. One was voting for student fees despite their manifesto commitment, which not only underlined the idea in many voters minds that they were only in it for themselves, but also lost them the crucial student vote in many seats. You wont catch a UK party making that mistake again in the future! The second was rushing into the reform of the voting system without the groundwork having been done to get the electorate on side. This was pretty much viewed as some weird fait accompli that had sprung out of no-where as far as the electorate were concerned & was pretty much doomed to failure. Said failure only emphasised the view amongst large chunks of the electorate that the LibDems were a bunch of weirdos who were obsessed with irrelevancies (like voting reform) rather than actually doing anything useful.
To all those who think that the LibDems were genuinely “a bunch of heartless cunts” I invite you to look at the difference between the policies implemented by the coalition government and those gleefully promised by the current conservative one. If you think they are indistinguishable then you have a very strange view of the world indeed. I’d also ask what exactly you think the LibDems should have done in 2010, because it’s not at all obvious to me that they had many other choices.
posted by pharm at 4:25 AM on September 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
Given the hand available to them immediately after the election, the LibDems played it as best they could. Sometimes all you have are shitty choices & the least worst is the best possible option. Coalition with the conservatives was always going to bring with it the enormous difficulty that the electorate would assign anything good that happened to the conservatives (who would naturally claim responsibility for all the good stuff if the electorate turned out to like it) whilst anything the electorate didn’t like would clearly be the fault of those perfidious LibDems (*ahem*). A trashing at the next election was something of a foregone conclusion at this point.
Unfortunately, they then compounded the inevitable difficulties being in coalition with the Conservatives would bring with a number of horrendous errors. One was voting for student fees despite their manifesto commitment, which not only underlined the idea in many voters minds that they were only in it for themselves, but also lost them the crucial student vote in many seats. You wont catch a UK party making that mistake again in the future! The second was rushing into the reform of the voting system without the groundwork having been done to get the electorate on side. This was pretty much viewed as some weird fait accompli that had sprung out of no-where as far as the electorate were concerned & was pretty much doomed to failure. Said failure only emphasised the view amongst large chunks of the electorate that the LibDems were a bunch of weirdos who were obsessed with irrelevancies (like voting reform) rather than actually doing anything useful.
To all those who think that the LibDems were genuinely “a bunch of heartless cunts” I invite you to look at the difference between the policies implemented by the coalition government and those gleefully promised by the current conservative one. If you think they are indistinguishable then you have a very strange view of the world indeed. I’d also ask what exactly you think the LibDems should have done in 2010, because it’s not at all obvious to me that they had many other choices.
posted by pharm at 4:25 AM on September 8, 2015 [8 favorites]
Unfortunately, they then compounded the inevitable difficulties being in coalition with the Conservatives would bring with a number of horrendous errors. One was voting for student fees despite their manifesto commitment, which not only underlined the idea in many voters minds that they were only in it for themselves, but also lost them the crucial student vote in many seats.
Yep. The first thing they did when they got into power was basically break a giant promise to the electorate and go against their stated principles in their manifesto. From there it was basically a clown car where the Tories fucked them on everything knowing the Lib Dems couldn't survive any election that would have been caused by the breakup of the coalition. Clegg sold everyone down the river for a single term as deputy leader. I hope the house parties at #10 were insane while Cameron was away on business because fuck me I can't see how this was worth the trade.
Then the Tories fucked them on the AV anyway, the thing they were telling everyone they desperately wanted and the Tories would give them.
Trying to assemble a rainbow coalition would have been a principled stand. Going back to the polls would have been the principled stand. The "we're not touching that Tory shit with a 40 foot barge pole" but instead they looked at it and said "we got 57 seats we're not going to do this well if everyone blames us for a second poll".
Going into coalition with the Tories and fucking your base the first chance you get isn't a principled stand. And it made them entirely complicit with the right cunts.
posted by Talez at 4:41 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
Yep. The first thing they did when they got into power was basically break a giant promise to the electorate and go against their stated principles in their manifesto. From there it was basically a clown car where the Tories fucked them on everything knowing the Lib Dems couldn't survive any election that would have been caused by the breakup of the coalition. Clegg sold everyone down the river for a single term as deputy leader. I hope the house parties at #10 were insane while Cameron was away on business because fuck me I can't see how this was worth the trade.
Then the Tories fucked them on the AV anyway, the thing they were telling everyone they desperately wanted and the Tories would give them.
Trying to assemble a rainbow coalition would have been a principled stand. Going back to the polls would have been the principled stand. The "we're not touching that Tory shit with a 40 foot barge pole" but instead they looked at it and said "we got 57 seats we're not going to do this well if everyone blames us for a second poll".
Going into coalition with the Tories and fucking your base the first chance you get isn't a principled stand. And it made them entirely complicit with the right cunts.
posted by Talez at 4:41 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
It’s really, *really* easy to criticise with perfect hindsight, but if you put yourself in their position back in 2010 they were put in an impossible position.
Not really. I was predicting this back then and I wasn't the only one. Clegg should've known, from his Dutch background at the very least, what can happen to the smaller partner in a coalition government and should've screwed the Tories harder, rather than being satisfied with a few meaningless political reform promises and junior positions in the cabinet. At the very least they should've hold out for Finance.
Meanwhile, Labour's plan for the economy was working: it was recovering without having to engage in crippling austerity mostly paid for by the poorest in society, while once the ConDems were in power it tanked again.
And of course the Tories's current policies are only made possible by having been in office for the last five years; had the LibDems not supported them they would've at best formed a minority government and hence would not have been in a position to e.g. push through student fees.
posted by MartinWisse at 4:42 AM on September 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
Not really. I was predicting this back then and I wasn't the only one. Clegg should've known, from his Dutch background at the very least, what can happen to the smaller partner in a coalition government and should've screwed the Tories harder, rather than being satisfied with a few meaningless political reform promises and junior positions in the cabinet. At the very least they should've hold out for Finance.
Meanwhile, Labour's plan for the economy was working: it was recovering without having to engage in crippling austerity mostly paid for by the poorest in society, while once the ConDems were in power it tanked again.
And of course the Tories's current policies are only made possible by having been in office for the last five years; had the LibDems not supported them they would've at best formed a minority government and hence would not have been in a position to e.g. push through student fees.
posted by MartinWisse at 4:42 AM on September 8, 2015 [6 favorites]
pharm: "I’d also ask what exactly you think the LibDems should have done in 2010, because it’s not at all obvious to me that they had many other choices."
Many countries will just have a minority government in such a situation. The LibDems would allow the government to sit, but vote for or against bills on a case-by-case basis. They could even do what the NDP did in Canada—announce that they are against a particular confidence motion ahead of time, putting the other parties in a bind! Then Cameron would either have to negotiate with another party in public; or withdraw the bill and lose face; or go ahead with the bill and be blamed for provoking an election. It also dares Labour to go ahead and make a deal with the Tories.
The LibDems made a bet that the country cared about "stable government" more than any policy in the world. Turns out that was a pretty bad bet.
posted by vasi at 4:48 AM on September 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
Many countries will just have a minority government in such a situation. The LibDems would allow the government to sit, but vote for or against bills on a case-by-case basis. They could even do what the NDP did in Canada—announce that they are against a particular confidence motion ahead of time, putting the other parties in a bind! Then Cameron would either have to negotiate with another party in public; or withdraw the bill and lose face; or go ahead with the bill and be blamed for provoking an election. It also dares Labour to go ahead and make a deal with the Tories.
The LibDems made a bet that the country cared about "stable government" more than any policy in the world. Turns out that was a pretty bad bet.
posted by vasi at 4:48 AM on September 8, 2015 [7 favorites]
I think that a minority government would have been the right choice in any other circumstance than the one the LibDems found themselves in - ie the election following the great recession / crash of 2007/08. From the point of view of 2010, I think they made the best of a set of bad choices & then managed to make things worse with a bunch of avoidable errors. I still don’t think the initial choice they made was the wrong one.
You can argue the toss over whether they could have extracted more out of the Tories than the coalition agreement managed. They were never, ever going to get the Chancellor’s cabinet seat however - that’s serious wishful-thinking revisionism.
posted by pharm at 5:03 AM on September 8, 2015
You can argue the toss over whether they could have extracted more out of the Tories than the coalition agreement managed. They were never, ever going to get the Chancellor’s cabinet seat however - that’s serious wishful-thinking revisionism.
posted by pharm at 5:03 AM on September 8, 2015
NB. I don’t think the LibDems believed that the electorate cared about stable government directly, nor that they would “reward them for their self-sacrifice” - they’re not that stupid. Frankly, I think they thought they were doing the right thing for the country by entering into coalition & knew it was going to go badly for them at the next election. A secondary consideration was that if they went for confidence and supply & things fell apart the electorate would probably blame them for the collapse & punish them at then election anyway. Hence, it was ultimately better to go the whole hog and hopefully be able to take credit for some of the positive outcomes whilst binding the conservatives to a full term so that they wouldn’t get blamed for a collapse of the coalition. Like I said: best of a set of bad choices. It didn’t work out for them, but that doesn’t mean it was the wrong decision.
posted by pharm at 5:09 AM on September 8, 2015
posted by pharm at 5:09 AM on September 8, 2015
Stable government in this country means the increasingly undemocratic mess that we've been living with for decades. It means an electorate that barely matters and governments that behave as if they have a strong mandate for sweeping change with only 25% of the electorate notionally behind them. It's arguably not even legitimate, being based on mass disenfranchisement, carried on as an intentional policy choice of both major parties. The Lib Dems collapsed because they looked like an alternative, but AV rather than PR put paid to any idea that they were capable of (or even wanted) real reform. A vote for the Lib Dems was once a vote against the distirbuted dictatorship of Labour and the Tories (increasingly inseperable in terms of policy, converging in a cosy yet destructive neoliberal niche). By becoming part of the establishment, the Lib Dems clearly became a vote for more of the same.
posted by xchmp at 5:14 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by xchmp at 5:14 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
AV is the best electoral system for representative government; PR is for whatever the elected version of the House of Lords turns out to be.
That leaves single combat for anyone that disagrees with me.
posted by pharm at 5:20 AM on September 8, 2015
That leaves single combat for anyone that disagrees with me.
posted by pharm at 5:20 AM on September 8, 2015
the LibDems ended up choosing (1) over (2) on the grounds that they could more effectively neutralise some of the Conservative party’s nuttier ideas from a position inside government
"We'll change the system from the inside." Always delusional. Should have stood back & let the Tories twist in the wind with a minority govt. Didn't even need confidence & supply.
Easy with hindsight, and it wouldn't have taken a genius at the time. But they were too excited.
posted by rd45 at 6:07 AM on September 8, 2015
"We'll change the system from the inside." Always delusional. Should have stood back & let the Tories twist in the wind with a minority govt. Didn't even need confidence & supply.
Easy with hindsight, and it wouldn't have taken a genius at the time. But they were too excited.
posted by rd45 at 6:07 AM on September 8, 2015
By abandoning the Lib Dems, the party's supporters showed they preferred the purity of eternal, impotent opposition to the difficult compromises that any political party must make when it tries to govern. If Labour's foolish enough t elect Jeremy Corbyn as its leader, it will be effectively be making the same decision. And what's the bloody point of that?
I think what's been interesting about the Lib Dem collapse and, now, the Labour leadership battle is that both have brought to the fore that there are two different ways at looking at political representation for those on the left in the UK:
1) Have politicians that accurately represent your overall leftiness, but that may - if general political commentary is accurate - render them incapable of carving out sufficient support to form a government.
2) Have politicians that focus on the broader principles and get elected, then look to implement those broader principles and a few more lefty bits by the back door.
The second of those approaches is what both "New Labour" and, later, the Lib Dems in coalition purported to be.
In both cases, for myriad reasons, that approach failed in the eyes of an awful lot of people - both party members and general public.
So,the more 2) looks like it's not viable, it's no surprise that those people (and I number myself among them) go "fuck it, might as well just go for option 1 then."
It's that which is contributing to the big burst of support for Corbyn as much as anything thing else.
As a Labour Party member, watching the current crop of Labour MPs panic and shock at discovering the Labour Party is a hotbed of left-wing beliefs has been both amusing and depressing though. That this is apparently a surprise highlights just how far politics (both for Labour and others) has moved to being a profession rather than an act of representation.
Or, as the satirical Daily Mash rather nicely put it, Party founded by Keir Hardie ‘being infiltrated by socialists’:
I think what's been interesting about the Lib Dem collapse and, now, the Labour leadership battle is that both have brought to the fore that there are two different ways at looking at political representation for those on the left in the UK:
1) Have politicians that accurately represent your overall leftiness, but that may - if general political commentary is accurate - render them incapable of carving out sufficient support to form a government.
2) Have politicians that focus on the broader principles and get elected, then look to implement those broader principles and a few more lefty bits by the back door.
The second of those approaches is what both "New Labour" and, later, the Lib Dems in coalition purported to be.
In both cases, for myriad reasons, that approach failed in the eyes of an awful lot of people - both party members and general public.
So,the more 2) looks like it's not viable, it's no surprise that those people (and I number myself among them) go "fuck it, might as well just go for option 1 then."
It's that which is contributing to the big burst of support for Corbyn as much as anything thing else.
As a Labour Party member, watching the current crop of Labour MPs panic and shock at discovering the Labour Party is a hotbed of left-wing beliefs has been both amusing and depressing though. That this is apparently a surprise highlights just how far politics (both for Labour and others) has moved to being a profession rather than an act of representation.
Or, as the satirical Daily Mash rather nicely put it, Party founded by Keir Hardie ‘being infiltrated by socialists’:
A BRITISH political party, founded over 100 years ago by socialists is ‘being infiltrated by socialists’, it has been claimed.posted by garius at 6:09 AM on September 8, 2015 [13 favorites]
The Labour Party, started in 1900 by self-confessed socialist Keir Hardie, has seen a ‘suspiciously large influx’ of people who believe a lot of the same things as he did.
A senior Labour official said: “These people are clearly very interested in politics, but for some reason they haven’t joined the Conservative Party. It would appear they are really into redistribution of wealth, nationalisation and the welfare state. It’s all very sinister.
I seem to agree with every possible side of these arguments. My main priority, both in 2010 and 2015, was that I wanted a government that was Not Tory, and with that in mind I think that:
- the approach to coalition negotiations was stupid - it seemed even at the time that confidence and supply would be more appropriate - and gambled too much on the AV vote. Then once that much weight had been given to AV, the campaign was incredibly ineffective. I see that this essay talks about the presentation of the coalition - the LDs should have seen from their inability to present the AV vote that this was going to be a challenge for them and should have prioritised explaining better.
- I had never thought about it but yes, the essay is entirely right to say they should have pushed for ownership of a department so that they could have shown some achievement.
- they did betray many of their 2010 voters: they campaigned to the left of Labour and then went on to form part of a government to the right of the Tories' 2010 campaign.
- having said that, the whole tribal Labour 'ah well they betrayed everyone and now they can fuck off and die forever' helps precisely no one if, like me, you want to keep people intent on kicking the poor in the face as far from power as it is possible to get. The first 10 days of the 2015 government showed in fact where the LDs had tempered what the Tories really wanted to do. The LDs were still putting their staplers in cardboard boxes and taking down their wall calendars as the new government was announcing the death of the Human Rights Act, further exciting ways in which people dependent on benefits would be forced to jump through hoops and even, just to rub in the fact that you could call them toffs as much as you like but they were the ones in power, the return of hunting foxes with dogs while wearing stupid clothes.
- ah the incumbent effect: that always seemed like wishful thinking. My old pre-2015 election MP had been the MP here for 20 years or so. I have seen him in the flesh once and I sent him 2/3 letters that were ignored. I would say I'm quite politically engaged for someone who is not a member of a party. It might be that every single sitting LD MP was a marvellous constituency relationship builder, but yeah, most people just don't see that much of their MPs I think.
posted by calico at 6:29 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
- the approach to coalition negotiations was stupid - it seemed even at the time that confidence and supply would be more appropriate - and gambled too much on the AV vote. Then once that much weight had been given to AV, the campaign was incredibly ineffective. I see that this essay talks about the presentation of the coalition - the LDs should have seen from their inability to present the AV vote that this was going to be a challenge for them and should have prioritised explaining better.
- I had never thought about it but yes, the essay is entirely right to say they should have pushed for ownership of a department so that they could have shown some achievement.
- they did betray many of their 2010 voters: they campaigned to the left of Labour and then went on to form part of a government to the right of the Tories' 2010 campaign.
- having said that, the whole tribal Labour 'ah well they betrayed everyone and now they can fuck off and die forever' helps precisely no one if, like me, you want to keep people intent on kicking the poor in the face as far from power as it is possible to get. The first 10 days of the 2015 government showed in fact where the LDs had tempered what the Tories really wanted to do. The LDs were still putting their staplers in cardboard boxes and taking down their wall calendars as the new government was announcing the death of the Human Rights Act, further exciting ways in which people dependent on benefits would be forced to jump through hoops and even, just to rub in the fact that you could call them toffs as much as you like but they were the ones in power, the return of hunting foxes with dogs while wearing stupid clothes.
- ah the incumbent effect: that always seemed like wishful thinking. My old pre-2015 election MP had been the MP here for 20 years or so. I have seen him in the flesh once and I sent him 2/3 letters that were ignored. I would say I'm quite politically engaged for someone who is not a member of a party. It might be that every single sitting LD MP was a marvellous constituency relationship builder, but yeah, most people just don't see that much of their MPs I think.
posted by calico at 6:29 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
The LD poker playing on AV was terrible. They needed to get it on a platter, an act of Parliament. There was never a chance that the referendum would pass. Enough Labour voters remembered three easy General Election wins with significantly fewer than 50% of the vote. Enough Conservative voters saw any deviation from FPTP as a stop on the road to irrevocable eurosocialism.
Now, even with a future hung Parliament, it would look undemocratic to implement legislatively AND the Tories and a big portion of the left would see it as a way to make UKIP the power broker, rather than the Lib Dems, which neither of them wants at all.
posted by MattD at 7:24 AM on September 8, 2015
Now, even with a future hung Parliament, it would look undemocratic to implement legislatively AND the Tories and a big portion of the left would see it as a way to make UKIP the power broker, rather than the Lib Dems, which neither of them wants at all.
posted by MattD at 7:24 AM on September 8, 2015
I think, in the runup to the coalition, Clegg played the hand he was dealt the best he could. However, as a party leader in government, I think the words "unmitigated disaster" can be fairly applied, and the fact that the LibDems didn't remove him when bye elections and council elections were clearly showing that the LibDems had become the politically untouchable caste basically sealed their fate.
I don't know if a new leader could have changed their fate -- but I do know that Nick Clegg could not. He was going to be punished for his actions in the first two years of the coalition, and the LibDems would pay with him. If he had been gone, maybe, and I stress the maybe, the punishment wouldn't have been so dire for them.
But basically, at this point, they're an also ran. The real question is "Is it even worth rebuilding?" Given the war for the soul of Labour right now, if Corbyn wins, there could be a Labour split, in which case, the left wing of the LibDems would probably just rejoin Corbyn Labour, the right wing would stay Tory.
It has been fascinating to watch the leadership of Labour just absolutely shit itself at the very existence of Jeremy Corbyn. How DARE he run for the leadership? And then run out an editorial by Gordon Brown? I was like "Wait, I thought you didn't want him to win? Are we that dumb or is there Spock level four dimensional chess in play here?"
posted by eriko at 7:25 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
I don't know if a new leader could have changed their fate -- but I do know that Nick Clegg could not. He was going to be punished for his actions in the first two years of the coalition, and the LibDems would pay with him. If he had been gone, maybe, and I stress the maybe, the punishment wouldn't have been so dire for them.
But basically, at this point, they're an also ran. The real question is "Is it even worth rebuilding?" Given the war for the soul of Labour right now, if Corbyn wins, there could be a Labour split, in which case, the left wing of the LibDems would probably just rejoin Corbyn Labour, the right wing would stay Tory.
It has been fascinating to watch the leadership of Labour just absolutely shit itself at the very existence of Jeremy Corbyn. How DARE he run for the leadership? And then run out an editorial by Gordon Brown? I was like "Wait, I thought you didn't want him to win? Are we that dumb or is there Spock level four dimensional chess in play here?"
posted by eriko at 7:25 AM on September 8, 2015 [3 favorites]
It has been fascinating to watch the leadership of Labour just absolutely shit itself at the very existence of Jeremy Corbyn. How DARE he run for the leadership? And then run out an editorial by Gordon Brown? I was like "Wait, I thought you didn't want him to win? Are we that dumb or is there Spock level four dimensional chess in play here?"
Tony sighed and lay back upon the bed. He’d opened the hotel window as much as he dared in an effort to relieve the oppressive heat of the afternoon sun, but it hadn’t helped. All it had done was let in the noise and smells of downtown Abu Dhabi.
He looked up at the dead-fly-caked ceiling, where what little breeze there was had started the broken ceiling fan moving in a lazy orbit. It wasn’t enough to cool him down, only to warm up some old memories. Memories of that time he’d ridden a tank across the Iraqui desert, laughing and waving a Union Jack and of the time that Bush had let him sit up front in Airforce Two. Those had been good days.
Come to think of it, maybe the Iraq thing hadn’t actually happened? Maybe it had just been a cartoon in the Daily Mail. It was hard to tell these days. Clouded by time and tequila, memory and fantasy too often blurred into one.
He would have spent the whole day lost in his thoughts like this, as he had done so many times before, had his mobile phone not suddenly burst into life, the sound of Things Can Only Get Better by D:Ream filling the room. It brought him back to reality with a start, scrabbling amongst the dirty sheets for the lost device. He didn’t even have to glance at its screen to know who was calling.
“Mandy.” He growled, rubbing a hand across his unshaven chin. “What do you want, you old son of a bitch.”
Nothing but silence came from the other end of the line. It was a cold, dark silence, though. The silence of a night-time walk through an alley alone, or as follows an interview question misheard and misanswered.
“I know it's you Mandy.” Tony said, suppressing the subconscious terror of race-memory that always came from talking to his old friend. Another memory was triggered– how that tolerance he had built up in conversations with Mandy had helped him resist the Vampiric mind powers of Michael Howard. More good times.
Finally, there was a whisper from the other end of the line. The kind of sound that somehow misses your ears and goes straight to the bridge of you nose.
“Howwwwww did you…”
“The fucking phone wasn’t even charged Mandy.” Tony sighed, anticipating the rest of the question. “And I threw the battery away. You’re the only one I know who can still pull this dark telephonic powers shit, unless some junior Tory cultist has resurrected Maggie again.”
There was silence from the other end of the phone again. No… wait… not total silence. Listening carefully, Tony could just make out a faint wheezing. As if an angry man was trying to breathe through a site of bagpi…
”Gordon?! Jesus Christ on a Boris Bike! This must be serious. I thought you still weren’t speaking to me!”
A cacophony of rage and piping filled the speaker.
“What Gordon isssssss trying to saaaay,” said the whisper, breaking in, “isssss that we haaaaave bigger problemssss. It isssss the Corbyn. Heeeeeeees winning.”
“He’s winning?” Tony laughed, “So what? You’re forgetting. He’s just a cipher. One of those clones David used to grow in his vats beneath the Home Office. We replaced all of the London lefties with them after the Robin Cook incident, remember?”
Tony smiled at the memory. They’d invited them all round for dinner and then got rid of them all at once, luring them in with cheese and some nice new world reds. Cherie had referred to it as “The Night of the Fondue Knives.”
“Nooooooo Tony.” Came the whisper. “Cooooorbyn was ooooout. Rememmmber. He was with the Liviiiiingstone that niiiight.”
Tony blanched. Mandy was right. How could he have forgotten. He’d been one of the missing ones, but it hadn’t seemed important at the time because no one would ever…
“Fuck!” He shouted.
Angry noise erupted from the phone once again.
“You’re right Gordon.” Tony said, already hunting round the room for a cleanish suit. “We must put our differences aside and reunite. The British public must be warned of the disaster that awaits them.
“It’s time for Old New Labour to ride out, one final time.”
posted by garius at 9:27 AM on September 8, 2015 [35 favorites]
Tony sighed and lay back upon the bed. He’d opened the hotel window as much as he dared in an effort to relieve the oppressive heat of the afternoon sun, but it hadn’t helped. All it had done was let in the noise and smells of downtown Abu Dhabi.
He looked up at the dead-fly-caked ceiling, where what little breeze there was had started the broken ceiling fan moving in a lazy orbit. It wasn’t enough to cool him down, only to warm up some old memories. Memories of that time he’d ridden a tank across the Iraqui desert, laughing and waving a Union Jack and of the time that Bush had let him sit up front in Airforce Two. Those had been good days.
Come to think of it, maybe the Iraq thing hadn’t actually happened? Maybe it had just been a cartoon in the Daily Mail. It was hard to tell these days. Clouded by time and tequila, memory and fantasy too often blurred into one.
He would have spent the whole day lost in his thoughts like this, as he had done so many times before, had his mobile phone not suddenly burst into life, the sound of Things Can Only Get Better by D:Ream filling the room. It brought him back to reality with a start, scrabbling amongst the dirty sheets for the lost device. He didn’t even have to glance at its screen to know who was calling.
“Mandy.” He growled, rubbing a hand across his unshaven chin. “What do you want, you old son of a bitch.”
Nothing but silence came from the other end of the line. It was a cold, dark silence, though. The silence of a night-time walk through an alley alone, or as follows an interview question misheard and misanswered.
“I know it's you Mandy.” Tony said, suppressing the subconscious terror of race-memory that always came from talking to his old friend. Another memory was triggered– how that tolerance he had built up in conversations with Mandy had helped him resist the Vampiric mind powers of Michael Howard. More good times.
Finally, there was a whisper from the other end of the line. The kind of sound that somehow misses your ears and goes straight to the bridge of you nose.
“Howwwwww did you…”
“The fucking phone wasn’t even charged Mandy.” Tony sighed, anticipating the rest of the question. “And I threw the battery away. You’re the only one I know who can still pull this dark telephonic powers shit, unless some junior Tory cultist has resurrected Maggie again.”
There was silence from the other end of the phone again. No… wait… not total silence. Listening carefully, Tony could just make out a faint wheezing. As if an angry man was trying to breathe through a site of bagpi…
”Gordon?! Jesus Christ on a Boris Bike! This must be serious. I thought you still weren’t speaking to me!”
A cacophony of rage and piping filled the speaker.
“What Gordon isssssss trying to saaaay,” said the whisper, breaking in, “isssss that we haaaaave bigger problemssss. It isssss the Corbyn. Heeeeeeees winning.”
“He’s winning?” Tony laughed, “So what? You’re forgetting. He’s just a cipher. One of those clones David used to grow in his vats beneath the Home Office. We replaced all of the London lefties with them after the Robin Cook incident, remember?”
Tony smiled at the memory. They’d invited them all round for dinner and then got rid of them all at once, luring them in with cheese and some nice new world reds. Cherie had referred to it as “The Night of the Fondue Knives.”
“Nooooooo Tony.” Came the whisper. “Cooooorbyn was ooooout. Rememmmber. He was with the Liviiiiingstone that niiiight.”
Tony blanched. Mandy was right. How could he have forgotten. He’d been one of the missing ones, but it hadn’t seemed important at the time because no one would ever…
“Fuck!” He shouted.
Angry noise erupted from the phone once again.
“You’re right Gordon.” Tony said, already hunting round the room for a cleanish suit. “We must put our differences aside and reunite. The British public must be warned of the disaster that awaits them.
“It’s time for Old New Labour to ride out, one final time.”
posted by garius at 9:27 AM on September 8, 2015 [35 favorites]
Can't. favourite. enough.
posted by Happy Dave at 9:47 AM on September 8, 2015
posted by Happy Dave at 9:47 AM on September 8, 2015
Corbyn does a certain Van Helsing look to him
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:01 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 10:01 AM on September 8, 2015 [2 favorites]
AV was the wrong policy to offer anyway and completely screwed over efforts to get some form of proportional representation in the UK government (so controversial a system that all the devolved assemblies use some form of it). AV was not PR and would not have resulted in a significantly more enfranchised electorate or more representative government (now I can have two votes that don't matter? hot damn, where do I sign up?). And yet because people quite sensibly rejected it, the matter is considered settled.
Breaking signed pledges because it would be inconvenient to keep them is one thing, sabotaging efforts to restore some legitimacy to the whole rotten Westminster mess is another level of betrayal. Even without a constitution it's pretty obvious that the first duty of government must be to to maintain the legitimacy of the political system and ensure that the whole thing operates within spitting distance of fairness. Because at some point this shit breaks down and it's never particularly pretty when it does.
posted by xchmp at 1:27 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Breaking signed pledges because it would be inconvenient to keep them is one thing, sabotaging efforts to restore some legitimacy to the whole rotten Westminster mess is another level of betrayal. Even without a constitution it's pretty obvious that the first duty of government must be to to maintain the legitimacy of the political system and ensure that the whole thing operates within spitting distance of fairness. Because at some point this shit breaks down and it's never particularly pretty when it does.
posted by xchmp at 1:27 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
My personal belief is that AV is the right voting system for a representative parliament; you want PR for your revising chamber / senate / whatever.
Meanwhile, idiots who voted against AV “because it wasn’t PR” got exactly what they deserved: the continuation of FPTP. Once again the left refused to move forward with the possible because what was offered wasn’t good enough for them.
posted by pharm at 5:07 AM on September 9, 2015
Meanwhile, idiots who voted against AV “because it wasn’t PR” got exactly what they deserved: the continuation of FPTP. Once again the left refused to move forward with the possible because what was offered wasn’t good enough for them.
posted by pharm at 5:07 AM on September 9, 2015
My personal belief is that AV is the right voting system for a representative parliament; you want PR for your revising chamber / senate / whatever.
Av plus is the way to go, or additional member system. It's what they use in Scotland and Germany (well, broadly). This is where you have constituencies with proportional top up. This gives a best of both world situation which produces proportionalish results but also allows that constituency link.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 5:31 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Av plus is the way to go, or additional member system. It's what they use in Scotland and Germany (well, broadly). This is where you have constituencies with proportional top up. This gives a best of both world situation which produces proportionalish results but also allows that constituency link.
posted by Cannon Fodder at 5:31 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don’t want proportionalish results for the governmental chamber: the non-proportionality of an AV-elected parliament is a feature, not a bug. Governments need to be able to actually govern & amplifying differences in electoral preferences is a necessary precondition for that in a world where elections are won from the centre ground. Small parties will get their proportionally representative voice heard in the second chamber.
YMMV if you live in a single-chamber governmental structure.
posted by pharm at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2015
YMMV if you live in a single-chamber governmental structure.
posted by pharm at 6:14 AM on September 9, 2015
Ken Livingstone sat deep in a London basement.
"I need the test, Ken. Let a drop fall on the coal."
"Surely we haven't gone that far now?"
The shotgun wheeled around. "Now, Ken. The test. Are you true?" Livingstone blanched, pricked his finger, and let a drop fall on the coal of Newcastle. Nothing happened. The shotgun lowered.
Jeremy Corbyn relaxed. "I'm sorry, Ken. But I assure you that was completely necessary. They've arisen again."
"That's not possible. Why would they? With Cameron in charge....wait...you. They sense you, and something else? Surely not Sturgeon...ahh...Mahri Black!"
"Yes. They're scared, and they've made mistakes. That's our opening. They thought they'd destroyed us that night. But they'd missed us two, and they'd completely ignored Scotland, of course. They thought after they'd buried Cook and turned Brown into that....thing....that no true Scotsman would stand against them. They never did understand the Scots. Well, neither do I -- but I'm honest enough to know that. That's why I let them go. They're stronger without us -- Tory will never cross that border now. We have to win this fight, but they'll be safe, and when they can, they'll help us."
"Labour is rising?"
"We are. But they rise as well." Corbyn reached over and pulled the hood off the third member, revealing the bound and gagged Ed Milliband, eyes glowing bright green.
"Damn." Livingstone shook his head. "You'd think they'd be smart and let Cameron handle this."
"Smart never was their strong suit. Thug first and ask questions never is more their game plan."
"Ed, you were good once. Why could you not resist the siren?" Ken quickly spoke a word and waved, and with a sharp jerk of the neck, the green light left Edward Miliband's eyes forever. "If it's war they want? War they shall have. I am tired of hiding."
"I know you are, but I need you to lay low for now, Ken. Your time will come -- but I need to save you. Blair and his Nazgül, that's my fight. I need you to keep an eye on the Balrog -- and when the time is right, destroy him."
"That? That I can do. I've been waiting for that moment for a long time, and when it comes, Ol' Boris won't even know what hit him. Take care, Jeremy -- It is a dangerous path you walk."
"No worse than yours, my friend. No worse than yours."
"My highest regards to Ms. Black, of course. I look forward to meeting her."
posted by eriko at 8:03 AM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
"I need the test, Ken. Let a drop fall on the coal."
"Surely we haven't gone that far now?"
The shotgun wheeled around. "Now, Ken. The test. Are you true?" Livingstone blanched, pricked his finger, and let a drop fall on the coal of Newcastle. Nothing happened. The shotgun lowered.
Jeremy Corbyn relaxed. "I'm sorry, Ken. But I assure you that was completely necessary. They've arisen again."
"That's not possible. Why would they? With Cameron in charge....wait...you. They sense you, and something else? Surely not Sturgeon...ahh...Mahri Black!"
"Yes. They're scared, and they've made mistakes. That's our opening. They thought they'd destroyed us that night. But they'd missed us two, and they'd completely ignored Scotland, of course. They thought after they'd buried Cook and turned Brown into that....thing....that no true Scotsman would stand against them. They never did understand the Scots. Well, neither do I -- but I'm honest enough to know that. That's why I let them go. They're stronger without us -- Tory will never cross that border now. We have to win this fight, but they'll be safe, and when they can, they'll help us."
"Labour is rising?"
"We are. But they rise as well." Corbyn reached over and pulled the hood off the third member, revealing the bound and gagged Ed Milliband, eyes glowing bright green.
"Damn." Livingstone shook his head. "You'd think they'd be smart and let Cameron handle this."
"Smart never was their strong suit. Thug first and ask questions never is more their game plan."
"Ed, you were good once. Why could you not resist the siren?" Ken quickly spoke a word and waved, and with a sharp jerk of the neck, the green light left Edward Miliband's eyes forever. "If it's war they want? War they shall have. I am tired of hiding."
"I know you are, but I need you to lay low for now, Ken. Your time will come -- but I need to save you. Blair and his Nazgül, that's my fight. I need you to keep an eye on the Balrog -- and when the time is right, destroy him."
"That? That I can do. I've been waiting for that moment for a long time, and when it comes, Ol' Boris won't even know what hit him. Take care, Jeremy -- It is a dangerous path you walk."
"No worse than yours, my friend. No worse than yours."
"My highest regards to Ms. Black, of course. I look forward to meeting her."
posted by eriko at 8:03 AM on September 9, 2015 [5 favorites]
Since 2001 fewer than half of the electorate have voted for either Tory or Labour at any general election. And this is in the context of FPTP which distorts voting preferences towards those parties, since nobody else can win. It also means parties that organise around issues that aren't about where you live are at a huge disadvantage because, as illustrated by UKIP, you can convince massive numbers of people to vote for you, but it won't matter because of their geographical distribution. Are the only issue worth caring about local in nature? Why should everything else people think important be discounted?
Non proportionality enables the minority to cling to power and pretend they represent some kind of center ground. There is no centre - politics disconnected from any real need to gain a true consensus creates its own centre without reference to the people being governed. That's what we get from our lack of representation. Government should require negotiation and compromise, not enable the power-hungry to ignore their opposition (not the opposition, but everyone who would oppose their policies, many of which the official opposition now share) and push forward with changes they have no real mandate for.
posted by xchmp at 8:14 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
Non proportionality enables the minority to cling to power and pretend they represent some kind of center ground. There is no centre - politics disconnected from any real need to gain a true consensus creates its own centre without reference to the people being governed. That's what we get from our lack of representation. Government should require negotiation and compromise, not enable the power-hungry to ignore their opposition (not the opposition, but everyone who would oppose their policies, many of which the official opposition now share) and push forward with changes they have no real mandate for.
posted by xchmp at 8:14 AM on September 9, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older it goes up | Imitation of Life - R.E.M. Deconstructed... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
1. The broken promise to students showed the Liberals up as outright liars, in contrast to an earlier reputation for relative honesty. Future promises were deemed worthless.
2. Picking the Tories to coalesce with alienated many supporters who'd grown used to the idea that the Libs were left of centre.
3. Going into government meant that for the first time in living memory they had to take responsibility and not pretend they could be all things to all people.
It was clear to most voters from very early on in the coalition that they would be severely punished as soon as there was an election. The fact that they didn't realise it just shows how utterly out of touch with the electorate they really were.
posted by Segundus at 1:20 AM on September 8, 2015 [10 favorites]