wireforever
Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 125
Ed Davey is he not Sir Ed honour awarded for services to the coalition government of dodgy David Cameron and George 'xhit on the north'Osborne
There was a very likely chance that they would form part of the government as going into the election, neither Labour or the Tories were polling high enough to win a majority. This was well before the SNP hegemony as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election#2010
And after the election they had talks with both parties, ending up with 5 Cabinet positions, so they could easily have insisted on the tuition fees promise as their dealbreaker for a coalition agreement. It would have been more effective than the AV referendum.
This is what I don't get about the complaints at Labour about that. All the parties are. If anyone believes Boris isn't either then they need to wake up a bit.Clegg, Cameron and Blair are cut from the same hew - are they part of the "London centric bourgeoisie ........." ?
Detail will be everything. If the comparison is with the Skills Wallets, these were staggered but with the opportunity to top them up (including, interestingly, by employers who might be wanting to fill a skills gap). It would be interesting to see if there is any reference to employers in the Tory version.Media reports this morning is the Conservatives will announce a lifetime learning loan for adults who want to retrain.
Highly unlikely. Will there be a Labour Government again in our lifetimes?Will there be a Liberal Democrat Government in any of our lifetimes ?
Certainly not mine I would have thought, but for some of our younger members.....who knows !!!
Highly unlikely. Will there be a Labour Government again in our lifetimes?
I very much doubt it in my lifetime - and I'm only just able to vote!Will there be a Liberal Democrat Government in any of our lifetimes ?
Certainly not mine I would have thought, but for some of our younger members.....who knows !!!
Yep, Nick Clegg. You really can't go into an election on promise of no rise in student tuition fees and then vote to treble them.
Where did it all go wrong for The Liberal Democrats ?
David Cameron
Where did it all go wrong for The European Union ?
David Cameron
Where did it all go wrong for accountability to The Seven Principles of Public Life ?
David Cameron
For such a pink, blobby chinless wonder, he sure did a lot of damage. And it seems he hasn't finished yet.
Westminster School, Eton and Fettes - I've known three different people, each educated at one of those schools (one female) and they had in common their sense of entitlement. Funnily enough, the only one who didn't look down his nose at 'ordinary' people was the Eton-educated one, but he was damaged by his experience of that grotesque place. The female, the youngest of the three, is even now climbing the greasy pole of the Conservative Party and is expected (by some) to achieve quite a height.I have read Nick Cleggs Biography and I can't remember the exact nuances of the Tuition Fee / PR Referendum dalliances.
It could be the prospect of power for the first time in eons clouded their judgement or they ditched it in the race for Ministerial Kudos and Limousines.
I've just had a thought....
Clegg, Cameron and Blair are cut from the same hew - are they part of the "London centric bourgeoisie ........." ?
All three are interchangeable between their relative Parties....Liberal, Left Wing Conservative and Right Wing Labour hardly a fag paper between them.
I think a significant number of voters decided they did not want to sit on the fence and came down on one side or the other, leaving no place for the Lib Dems
But Nick Clegg faced a difficult choice. One of the arguments the Lib Dems put forward for voting for them was that if they held the balance in Parliament they could hold both the major parties back from more extreme policies. In 2010 they found themselves holding the balance, if they supported the Conservatives. Could a party which campaigned as a viable alternative to the two big ones turn down the chance to be in government when the opportunity came along? Not to join a coalition, and instead provide informal support to a minority Conservative government on an issue by issue basis, would have seemed like chickening out. Perhaps Nick Clegg's failure was in agreeing to a coalition on the wrong terms - accepting much more of what the Conservatives proposed and not insisting on a greater proportion of Lib Dem policies. Perhaps he, or maybe other Lib Dem figures, attached too much importance to a referendum on proportional representation and not enough to economic policies.
I recall reading an article in which William Hague, who led the Conservative delegation that negotiated with the Lib Dems about taking part in a coalition, was reported to have gone home one evening and told his wife: "I think I have just destroyed the Liberal Party". It seems that he had a much better understanding of the ultimate political effect of the coalition than Nick Clegg had.
The selling off of the Post Office, destroying such benefits as Disability Living Allowance and helping to make the new old age pension payment arrangements disproportionately adverse for some groups of people also happened with their connivance, if not under their 'watch'. If each of these measures had to go through Parliament under a minority Conservative government some might have been amended or even withdrawn. If truth be told, Nick Clegg probably had more in common personality wise with David Cameron than was acknowledged at the time, with future personal nest feathering to the fore.I suppose there's a lot less fence-sitting elsewhere too - just as the UUP and SDLP were pretty much wiped out by the DUP and Sinn Fein - the "moderate" parties find it harder to compete for votes in an era where people want simplistic "solutions" - the era of Twitter is an era of short snappy concise arguments rather than the "it's more complicated than that, you have to understand both sides" kind of LibDem argument - people don't have the attention spans to listen to both sides of an argument, they want instant validation!
Plus, as some people migrate to "far left" parties, that encourages others to migrate to "far right" parties to counterbalance, which encourages more to migrate to "far left" which... (e.g. the more popular Corbyn seemed, the more people it pushed into the arms of UKIP, which pushed more people into the arms of Corbyn...)
(I'm being slightly tongue in cheek, but you know what I mean...)
Very good points
If the LibDems sat on the sidelines in 2010 then you'd have to ask what the point of them was - if they aren't interested in actually being in Government then why are you even bothering to get elected? It's like being a substitute goalkeeper, never expecting to get onto the pitch but you can't then refuse to come on if the actual keeper gets injured
The Tories were used to all of the backstabbing and trade offs that Government required, the LibDems had no experience, so it was always going to be hard for them. Look at how efficient the Tories are at clinging to power - it's like something from an Atternborough documentary - they fight each other ruthlessly and then unite to show a united front to the public (something that Labour never flipping well understand!) - look at how the likes of Soames were ruthlessly discarded by Johnson post-Brexit and now queue up to praise him for being so amazing - it's brutal but effective - these people are used to the cut and thrust of boardrooms - good luck entering into negotiations with such sharks, but the "beards and sandals" brigade were always going to struggle.
Maybe it'd have been a lot better for the LibDems if Blair failed to win quite so many seats in the past; they'd have had a taste of Government with Charles Kennedy in charge, would probably have found a lot more common ground with Blair, and would probably have allowed Blair to keep the backbench "rabble"in check (less scope for the likes of Corbyn to rebel hundreds of times if Labour didn't have the luxury of a hundred seat majority)
I've seen LibDems claim that a significant proportion of their manifesto became legislation, and complain that they didn't get enough credit for things like significantly increasing the income tax threshold (which will have removed a lot of low paid people out of paying income tax and therefore is probably one of the biggest benefits to the working poor of my lifetime). Shame for them in a way that they won't be remembered for this - the history books will be Tuition Fees, Tuition Fees, Tuition Fees.
One other problem that the LibDems had in 2010 is that the narrative was that this was a period of economic crisis where Something Must Be Done and there was an apparent urgency to balance the books and bring in austerity (though Brown/ Darling left a growing economy with triple-A credit rating) - so it would have been tougher for the LibDems to take their time striking a complicated confidence/supply arrangement - they were effectively "bounced" into signing on the dotted line, because the Tories controlled the narrative that Britain was only ten minutes away from bankruptcy, so any "deal" was fairly hastily arranged (to the long term cost of the LibDems)
Do you mean Royal Mail? I seem to remember that being advocated very strongly by Vince Cable.The selling off of the Post Office, destroying such benefits as Disability Living Allowance and helping to make the new old age pension payment arrangements disproportionately adverse for some groups of people also happened with their connivance, if not under their 'watch'. If each of these measures had to go through Parliament under a minority Conservative government some might have been amended or even withdrawn. If truth be told, Nick Clegg probably had more in common personality wise with David Cameron than was acknowledged at the time, with future personal nest feathering to the fore.
Yeah, it was Royal Mail. That and the Post Office are, of course, two different things.Do you mean Royal Mail? I seem to remember that being advocated very strongly by Vince Cable.
Agreed, lets not forget Johnson was the mayor of London for some time, aka the metropolitan liberal epicentre of Britain.This is what I don't get about the complaints at Labour about that. All the parties are. If anyone believes Boris isn't either then they need to wake up a bit.
I suppose there's a lot less fence-sitting elsewhere too - just as the UUP and SDLP were pretty much wiped out by the DUP and Sinn Fein - the "moderate" parties find it harder to compete for votes in an era where people want simplistic "solutions" - the era of Twitter is an era of short snappy concise arguments rather than the "it's more complicated than that, you have to understand both sides" kind of LibDem argument - people don't have the attention spans to listen to both sides of an argument, they want instant validation!
Another 'own goal'; Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee reckon HMG lost up to a potential £1 billion on the sale of shares.Yeah, it was Royal Mail. That and the Post Office are, of course, two different things.
As someone who writes a lot of letters (around 200 a year), I was particularly unhappy with the way the Lib Dems just waved that one through. Prices have gone through the roof since then.
Lazard & Co was paid £1.5m for advising the government. Lazard Asset Management (LAM), which was selected as one of the preferred bidders, made £8.4m for clients by selling shares shortly after the flotation. LAM itself made a profit of around £40,000 from the share sale.
Supposedly Ofcom regulates prices, but they seem toothless to say the least. There's also plans to end Saturday letter deliveries, which I'm very annoyed about.Another 'own goal'; Business, Innovation and Skills Select Committee reckon HMG lost up to a potential £1 billion on the sale of shares.
Every time you post a letter, you are putting money into the hands of the likes of Lazards, Goldman-Sachs and USB - and, possibly, your postie (the only good part of it). What particularly annoyed me was that previously I think they had offered Christmas stamps at a discount so that those who were struggling could still send cards. I e-mailed them after privatisation about whether they would do the same - no! They have also been sneaky about the price rises. They moved it forward this year - 1st Jan, I think. I don't know whether there is any control on the price rises. Vince Cable lost a lot of respect from me over that deal!
(Source https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-28250963
You're quite right - the scandal of closure of post offices and the treatment of sub-postmasters started under Labour and was continued under the Con/Lib mob. I have to admit I still fondly fantasise about it all coming under the G.P.O. again, although I'm prepared to concede that the telephone system shouldn't return to state control. which is rather big of me I think.Do you mean Royal Mail? I seem to remember that being advocated very strongly by Vince Cable.
That would surely have an impact on Monday's deliveries in terms of volume. And collections? We already have an issue with responding to incoming mail as our collection time is 4 to 5 hours before delivery times so for anything delivered on a Friday a response will not get picked up until a Monday and so delivered on a Tuesday at the earliest, almost a week from the latest sending time.Supposedly Ofcom regulates prices, but they seem toothless to say the least. There's also plans to end Saturday letter deliveries, which I'm very annoyed about.
Sir John Vincent Cable, please. What that lot were prepared to do for baubles! I believe in Proportional Representation, but the Lib Dems had so turned me off it I voted against it in that referendum.That would surely have an impact on Monday's deliveries in terms of volume. And collections? We already have an issue with responding to incoming mail as our collection time is 4 to 5 hours before delivery times so for anything delivered on a Friday a response will not get picked up until a Monday and so delivered on a Tuesday at the earliest, almost a week from the latest sending time.
Apparently, Ofcom research found that customers would be largely indifferent to a reduction in service. Clearly, they didn't ask you! Doubtless, changes to the universal service obligation will be nodded through by HMG.
They might lose parcels business if they cut delivery of these on a Saturday to other providers - and that is not part of the Universal service obligation. Vince, you've got a lot to answer for!
I don't think we have had a vote for PR. I thought it was single transferable vote, which the LibDems didn't want (but I quite like - so voted for it). All those concessions for a vote on a voting system they didn't want and a mention that they wanted Pupil Premium which, in the beginning at least, schools could spend on anything they liked! And, as you say, a load of knighthoods. I suppose it was the party of Lloyd George!Sir John Vincent Cable, please. What that lot were prepared to do for baubles! I believe in Proportional Representation, but the Lib Dems had so turned me off it I voted against it in that referendum.
Might the problem date back a full 100 years to the early 1920's when David Lloyd George's tenure as Prime Minister came to an inglorious end after he had become embroiled in the cash for honours scandal?
Sir John Vincent Cable, please. What that lot were prepared to do for baubles!
And, as you say, a load of knighthoods. I suppose it was the party of Lloyd George!
One of the demands the LibDems made before agreeing to enter a coalition with the Tories was for a referendum on P.R. to replace first-past-the-post in Westminster elections for MPs; in the end, they had to settle for the A.V. system being proposed, which is not P.R. in the strictest sense, but it was for public consumption and in the catch-all sense. Now, the Conservative Party will, and do, say that P.R. was rejected by the electorate, rather than A.V. being rejected. In the scheme of government untruths, this is small beer.I don't think we have had a vote for PR. I thought it was single transferable vote, which the LibDems didn't want (but I quite like - so voted for it). All those concessions for a vote on a voting system they didn't want and a mention that they wanted Pupil Premium which, in the beginning at least, schools could spend on anything they liked! And, as you say, a load of knighthoods. I suppose it was the party of Lloyd George!
I don't think we have had a vote for PR. I thought it was single transferable vote, which the LibDems didn't want (but I quite like - so voted for it). All those concessions for a vote on a voting system they didn't want and a mention that they wanted Pupil Premium which, in the beginning at least, schools could spend on anything they liked! And, as you say, a load of knighthoods. I suppose it was the party of Lloyd George!