A Political Thread

[Reiser99]

In terms of the Lib Dems there is also another issue for them in terms of the legacy of the coalition. I think many people left the coalition with the feeling that majority governments do better. Not saying it's completely true, but especially with FFTP many people have switched to tactical voting by voting for the party that will most likely stop the party they don't want getting into power. This has generally led to either labour or conservatives. While Lib dems will still get some votes they have lost many of the swing voters that they had back in the coalition.

 

[ncurd]

In terms of the Lib Dems there is also another issue for them in terms of the legacy of the coalition. I think many people left the coalition with the feeling that majority governments do better. Not saying it's completely true, but especially with FFTP many people have switched to tactical voting by voting for the party that will most likely stop the party they don't want getting into power. This has generally led to either labour or conservatives. While Lib dems will still get some votes they have lost many of the swing voters that they had back in the coalition.

Compare to shite we've had the past 5 years give me the coalition any day of the week. It raise a particular problem many people voted LD to keep Tories out in their area because Lab had no chance. When the LD supported the Tories many people who voted that way balked seeing them as colluding with the enemy so voted Lab anyway next time around and got even more Tories.

Its an issue with FPTP more than anything its really hard to know what true voter intention actually is as many aren't given a legitimate option to put thier view forward. And there are many politically thinking people who don'y think any party actually represents them in this current climate and think they won't vote. There also those that vote for their team no matter what their team actually represents. The LD's would probably have more seats under PR and likely more votes as people who actually aligned with them would not be wasting their votes. Sadly the two major parties vastly loose power in that system. It would stop the factionalism within those parties to some extent because they'd be able to exist as seperate entities.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I think the issue with the Lib Dems is they don't really have an identity any more. Hello I've lost track of what they stood for. Under Clegg pre-coalition they got a very clear message out and hence the meme "I agree with Nick". Part was political manoeuvring but part was they were suggesting a lot of policies that fundamentally many people agreed with and were getting the message out that they could be a viable 3rd choice. Since the coalition and reneging on that, they've lost their identity. I agree that now people should move on from that though, what has occurred in other parties is worse and they did play a role in reducing more extreme Tory policies.

They seem to have gone down the path recently of trying to stand out by going for a single really big policy they thought would be a vote winner and failed badly. What they need to do is get back to basics, get a core of policies that aren't drastically out there and seem to be sensible with a wide support. Don't hang their hat on a single big policy but instead work to get support across a broad range of issues. They cannot be an anti-UKIP/Brexit because, as the last election showed, single issue parties may win on single issues but they still fail to get MPs.

 

[ncurd]

Since the coalition and reneging on that, .

Mileage may vary here but this make an interesting read
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...crats-2010-election-manifesto-was-implemented

On Health and Families they were pretty successful but education was a disaster.

It should also be noted I think the original coalition agreement had something like 80% of the LD manifesto. But my complaint about the coalition wasn't it existed but Clegg should of pulled the plug when the Tories broke the agreement especially on house of lords reform (which was the LD big ticket item they got from the Tories and what they sold the coalition agreement to members on).

2015 was devestating and recovery would always take a long time from that kind of defeat, then the referendum happened and being pro-European party as was always thier identity meant they were at the forefront of that. Tim, Vince and Jo all massively miscalculated how big to push that over all other policies thinking it would win them seats. Which is a shame because unsurpsingly the LD's do have a pretty broad and substantial policy base from not being a single issue party. Also the emembership soared due to the Brexit positioning and many new members it was their sole reason for joining and they pushed it. Many warned against becoming a single issue party but the leadership solely traded on it. Now nobody really knows what they are for or against anymore and they don't have an elected leader to really steer the ship.


Plus if we are honest nobody at the top is an Ashdown or Kennedy, nobody really is a Clegg either. Sadly most of the top talent actually got gutted in 2015.

 

[Bada-Bing!]

And to think I wasted my vote on Lib Dems in the last election..

Nah seriously, if Starmer continues and Labour doesn't tear itself apart, I can see myself voting Labour in my never going to be anything other than Tory constituency. My politics is that narrow channel down the middle between centre right and left anyway; I can veer between the two. The channel Lib Dems should be comfortably occupying, but yes seems to have lost it's way completely to be pretty irrelevant.

 

[ncurd]

https://twitter.com/StephenMcGann/status/1260990470588637185?s=09

Nothing to trivialise a serious problem but Johnson is going to get Post Traumatic Starmer Disorder.

 

[Gavin]

The Tories are definitely, IMO, beginning to worry about Starmer. I find it interesting that Johnson is struggling at PMQs because he does not have his jeering hoard behind him. Perhaps proven when Rees-Mogg called on back benchers to be allowed to return to parliament.



Several Conservative MP have shared this on Twitter, with them subsequently deleting the post or their entire profile.

 

[ncurd]

Yup made bbc news website front page, the whip had to yell at them. Starmer played a sturdy foward defensive accepted the apology and said more important things. Knowing full well the smear has been destroyed and they'll have to work far harder next time to get traction about his record at the top of the CPS

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-52653609

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Yeah definitely, and that can only be good for democracy. There's not been a competent, electable labour leader since Blair, argument for Milliband but he was never electable as PM really.

Best thing for labour is to slowly scourge momentum,R etc from the cabinet and influential positions (I understand them being there now) and eventually get the party to a stage where it's at least somewhat unified. I think Starmer can do that.

My concern for him is that his growing voice at the moment could end up backfiring as it's easy bullets in the chamber at election time that he was "unpatriotic" or unhelpful. I'm not saying I believe that btw, just that it will definitely be used.

Overall, I think labour need to be very very careful about the next time they get to propose a spending plan. Public appetite for austerity was there in 2008 after the crash, and it may so happen that the British public again realise that that is what necessary moving forward again.
The risk will be if Labour ignore that and propose big spending increases to try and win an election. If that works, we could be left with a "we have no money" situation again, or if it doesn't, it will compound the arguement that their fiscal policy is outdated and out of step with the British public. Just a lose lose really if they go down that route I think. I trust Starmer is more intelligent than that but I wouldn't be so confident for the "won the argument but lost the election" crew...

 

[stus768]

Yeah definitely, and that can only be good for democracy. There's not been a competent, electable labour leader since Blair, argument for Milliband but he was never electable as PM really.

Best thing for labour is to slowly scourge momentum,R etc from the cabinet and influential positions (I understand them being there now) and eventually get the party to a stage where it's at least somewhat unified. I think Starmer can do that.

My concern for him is that his growing voice at the moment could end up backfiring as it's easy bullets in the chamber at election time that he was "unpatriotic" or unhelpful. I'm not saying I believe that btw, just that it will definitely be used.

Overall, I think labour need to be very very careful about the next time they get to propose a spending plan. Public appetite for austerity was there in 2008 after the crash, and it may so happen that the British public again realise that that is what necessary moving forward again.
The risk will be if Labour ignore that and propose big spending increases to try and win an election. If that works, we could be left with a "we have no money" situation again, or if it doesn't, it will compound the arguement that their fiscal policy is outdated and out of step with the British public. Just a lose lose really if they go down that route I think. I trust Starmer is more intelligent than that but I wouldn't be so confident for the "won the argument but lost the election" crew...

I really don't think there'll be much appetite for austerity.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

I really don't think there'll be much appetite for austerity.

I don't know, but people always forget that there was post Brown
Even if there isn't then surely this whole thing has proved that austerity was definitely the right course of action at the time?

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

I don't know, but people always forget that there was post Brown
Even if there isn't then surely this whole thing has proved that austerity was definitely the right course of action at the time?

No because austerity failed to hit any of the targets. We have had a decade of it an up until the most recent crisis had still barely had a recovery but done a hell of a lot of damage. What really needs to be done in focus on getting the economy growing and then look at reducing the deficit when things are going well. Throwing spending cuts on top of a collapsing economy tends to just drag things out further. 10 years of austerity and they have still failed to get the debt down, why should we believe that in another 10 it will be any different? At some point someone has to make the proper decisions. If we go austerity then we go privatisation, if we keep it in public ownership then we need to properly fund it. We can't keep it in public ownership but grossly underfund it as that is the worst of both worlds.

 

[ncurd]

Even if it were the right thing to do I don't think the general public have the stomouch for it again. Especially after shortfalls in NHS spending has been shown up so much during the crisis.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

No because austerity failed to hit any of the targets. We have had a decade of it an up until the most recent crisis had still barely had a recovery but done a hell of a lot of damage. What really needs to be done in focus on getting the economy growing and then look at reducing the deficit when things are going well. Throwing spending cuts on top of a collapsing economy tends to just drag things out further. 10 years of austerity and they have still failed to get the debt down, why should we believe that in another 10 it will be any different? At some point someone has to make the proper decisions. If we go austerity then we go privatisation, if we keep it in public ownership then we need to properly fund it. We can't keep it in public ownership but grossly underfund it as that is the worst of both worlds.

Such bad damage was done to the economy that purely looking at "the debt failing to go down" is rather a pointless metric. Look instead at the level of debt not spiraling until austerity ended to see the success of it.

We would be in a far worse position today, in this crisis, had austerity not been put into practice post 2008. There is no way we would have been able to borrow the money for the furlough package. We would have been absolutely ******, moreso than now.

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Such bad damage was done to the economy that purely looking at "the debt failing to go down" is rather a pointless metric. Look instead at the level of debt not spiraling until austerity ended to see the success of it.

We would be in a far worse position today, in this crisis, had austerity not been put into practice post 2008. There is no way we would have been able to borrow the money for the furlough package. We would have been absolutely ******, moreso than now.

The deficit wasn't going to continue spiralling up indefinitely and it didn't take into account the fact that austerity could have stunted growth quite severely. Compare the EU and UK to the USA, which one struggled for growth? Which used austerity? There is history of austerity in the last and every time it had been in place, the economy had faltered. I cannot think of an austerity economy that has grown well. If the government wants to reduce its bill then it should go all the way in and sell off the public liabilities and let the private sector deal with the costs. If it wants to keep it in public ownership then it needs to properly find it. The issues with the NHS and our appalling productivity shows what happens in an austerity economy. Another 10 years of that and we could start severely lagging behind.

 

[The Seeker]

 

[The Seeker]

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

 

[The Seeker]

 

[The Seeker]