UK Politics VI

[mormont]

Mormont,

So will LibDem voters now be as vilified as Green party voters were in the U.S. after the 2000 election?:P

Possibly. But so many of us regret it already (and are vocally saying so) that it seems much more likely that it's Clegg who will be reviled.

It's some story: in the space of weeks he's gone from an insignificant figure who had achieved nothing of note in two years as leader, to the flavour of the month for presenting himself as a credible alternative in the debates, to the man who promised much but delivered only a reduction in MPs, to the kingmaker, and now to a Tory ally who is reviled by many of his own voters and who appears to have bought into the establishment in the biggest way possible.

I mean, this is a Lib Dem leader who has agreed to a compulsory referendum before any closer integration with the EU and has signed up to the introduction of a fixed cap on immigration (an idea he rightly ridiculed as pointless and unfair in the debates) - two polices about as far from Lib Dem ideals as it is possible to imagine. Not to mention the marriage tax break, the cuts, keeping Trident... if you're going to sell all this, you'd better get something substantial out of the deal. A referendum on AV? Delaying the inheritance tax cut? Some stuff on schools that the Tories were going to do anyway? It's not an impressive list.

But what's happened to Gove? :(

He popped up on the radio this morning telling the most enormous whoppers about how the Conservatives believe in the environment and progressive taxation, and then topped that by claiming that he'd always admired David Laws and thought he was, if anything, a better education spokesman than he (Gove) was himself. Which, apart from being hilarious, is pretty much an admission that he's traded his job in.

On BBC they are talking as if the Deputy PM is a big deal, is that really the case? Isn't this just a honorific position?

I agree with Michael Heseltine on this: he said last night that the job can be very powerful if the rest of the government know you speak for the PM and have his full authority. If you don't, it's a sinecure. Clearly, Clegg doesn't.

[Usotsuki]

I agree with Michael Heseltine on this: he said last night that the job can be very powerful if the rest of the government know you speak for the PM and have his full authority. If you don't, it's a sinecure. Clearly, Clegg doesn't.

This argument strikes me as really rather foolish, if Nick Clegg were a Conservative politician in a Conservative government who did not enjoy the absolute confidence of the Conservative Prime Minister he would have a mainly ceremonial post. Good to know.

[VarysTheSpider]

He popped up on the radio this morning telling the most enormous whoppers about how the Conservatives believe in the environment and progressive taxation, and then topped that by claiming that he'd always admired David Laws and thought he was, if anything, a better education spokesman than he (Gove) was himself. Which, apart from being hilarious, is pretty much an admission that he's traded his job in.

Aye, but for what? Doesn't seem cut out to be a Home Sec (and completely undesirable IMO), but he must get something. Leader of the House, perhaps.

[Werthead]

the man who promised much but delivered only a reduction in MPs,

True, but he did deliver an increase in votes (if only of 1%, but there you go). In addition, this election really confirmed what we already knew, that money plays an enormous role in these elections. The LibDems didn't have the financial resources to follow up their poll boost with flyers, leaflets, TV ads and other things to capitalise on their rise in profile, and suffered accordingly.

I mean, this is a Lib Dem leader who has agreed to a compulsory referendum before any closer integration with the EU and has signed up to the introduction of a fixed cap on immigration (an idea he rightly ridiculed as pointless and unfair in the debates) - two polices about as far from Lib Dem ideals as it is possible to imagine. Not to mention the marriage tax break, the cuts, keeping Trident... if you're going to sell all this, you'd better get something substantial out of the deal. A referendum on AV? Delaying the inheritance tax cut? Some stuff on schools that the Tories were going to do anyway? It's not an impressive list.

Whilst I agree from the POV of a LibDem supporter, I think the argument that this deal might be the best result possible for the country has some merit. If the LibDems walked away from the deal, leaving the Tories struggling along as a minority government, they would be reviled for that as well. If this led to another election, the LibDems would have criticised for causing that, and suffer accordingly. I don't think Clegg is under illusions either that the price for this taste of power could be the LibDems returning to the wilderness for many years after this parliament either.

However, I agree that the AV referendum is completely pointless. Many supporters of PR will vote against it (as it isn't PR) and it's rather pathetic even as a sop to the LibDem faithful. The Tories knew that full PR would stand a good chance of winning, which is why they didn't offer it. I do wonder if Clegg is banking on being able to use the LibDems' influence in government to get the Tories to agree to a PR referendum instead down the line. If the coalition government works well, the Tories could possibly be influenced into going there (though Cameron would have to spend some significant political capital to do it).

He popped up on the radio this morning telling the most enormous whoppers about how the Conservatives believe in the environment and progressive taxation, and then topped that by claiming that he'd always admired David Laws and thought he was, if anything, a better education spokesman than he (Gove) was himself. Which, apart from being hilarious, is pretty much an admission that he's traded his job in.

Watching Gove and Laws join forces to swat down Balls' education policies during the debate during the election was entertaining, and I think Laws was by far the most confident speaker and had the clearest command of the facts. That does reinforce that the LibDems and Tories are close on education policy anyway, so this wasn't a huge concession in any case.

[Chaldanya]

I must say it's a refreshing change to see an all white, all male cabinet. Oh, no, wait...

N

[mormont]

This argument strikes me as really rather foolish, if Nick Clegg were a Conservative politician in a Conservative government who did not enjoy the absolute confidence of the Conservative Prime Minister he would have a mainly ceremonial post. Good to know.

Two words: Geoffrey Howe. While Tarzan was of course at pains to point out how important the role was when he had it, I think he did have a point. ;)

Clegg's job as Deputy PM, of course, is really 'Chief Lib Dem'. It's a political post more than a governmental one - as the office of Deputy PM often is.

Aye, but for what? Doesn't seem cut out to be a Home Sec (and completely undesirable IMO), but he must get something. Leader of the House, perhaps.

Possibly. If he gets Home Secretary, the Lib Dems won't have any of the three 'big hitter' posts, but that looks increasingly likely.

True, but he did deliver an increase in votes (if only of 1%, but there you go).

With that and £2.50 he can buy himself a cup of coffee. A 1% increase in votes is politically insignificant.

In addition, this election really confirmed what we already knew, that money plays an enormous role in these elections. The LibDems didn't have the financial resources to follow up their poll boost with flyers, leaflets, TV ads and other things to capitalise on their rise in profile, and suffered accordingly.

That's one interpretation, but not a well supported one, I fear. Another is that the Lib Dems suffered the same squeeze that they have in almost every other election: as polling day approaches, voters who have been flirting with the idea of voting for them retreat to their preferred 'big party'. In the end, Clegg couldn't break the mould in electoral terms any more than his predecessors: he just got luckier than they did with the split of the main parties' results.

Whilst I agree from the POV of a LibDem supporter, I think the argument that this deal might be the best result possible for the country has some merit.

Since I think most of the policies to be enacted are bad for the country, I obviously disagree. I think better bargaining from the Lib Dems would have resulted in a better deal, and that the prospect of a minority Tory government wasn't all that scary.

[MinDonner]

Theresa May as Home Secretary? WTF? Well, at least they've put one woman on the Cabinet... :unsure:

[Chaldanya]

She's also the minister for Women and Equality.

N

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Min,

Or other UK borders, what does the Home Secretary do? I recall upthread it was listed as one of the big positions in the cabinet.

[MinDonner]

Min,

Or other UK borders, what does the Home Secretary do? I recall upthread it was listed as one of the big positions in the cabinet.

Police, immigration, general internal affairs not specifically covered by the other portfolios... it's a biggy.

[Usotsuki]

Ser Scot, it's the worst job in the government. You're responsible for police brutality, police apathy, rising crime*, immigrants, asylum seekers, failure to avert threats to national security, curtailing rights in order to confront largely imaginary threats to national security and the fact that teenagers just aren't as polite as they used to be,

*some category of criminal activity is always rising

[john]

Possibly. But so many of us regret it already (and are vocally saying so) that it seems much more likely that it's Clegg who will be reviled.

But you said before that labour voters last time knew they were electing Gordon Brown as PM at some point. Surely LibDem voters knew that power sharing, with accordingly big concessions, was likely also.

I'm a LibDem supporter but i voted Labour to (symbolically, since I'm scottish) try to keep Tory policies out of government. Any coalition was going to be LibDem policy light.

Re Theresa May. Well, she was totally unimpressive during the campaign.

[mormont]

But you said before that labour voters last time knew they were electing Gordon Brown as PM at some point. Surely LibDem voters knew that power sharing, with accordingly big concessions, was likely also.

Personally, my defence is that a ) there was no Green candidate and so b ) I decided to vote for Ming as he is a good constituency MP and did me a favour during the last Parliament. ;)

But you're right insofar as Lib Dem voters must have realised that there was the chance of a ConDem coalition: however, to spare myself the charge of hypocrisy, I'll assert that there's a difference between that (where what matters is what was eventually agreed and what was conceded - and my irritation is with that) and the GB situation, where what you were voting for was clear-cut.

[john]

Fair enough. Personally, I think the cabinet split is a pleasing indication and more than i was expecting. But we'll see how that works in practice.

[HT Reddy]

With that and £2.50 he can buy himself a cup of coffee. A 1% increase in votes is politically insignificant.

Since I think most of the policies to be enacted are bad for the country, I obviously disagree. I think better bargaining from the Lib Dems would have resulted in a better deal, and that the prospect of a minority Tory government wasn't all that scary.

It does seem a bit of a paltry deal for the LDs. But I do think it's harsh to say Clegg had a bad election - much of the liberals' popularity in 2005 as I recal was due to opposition to the Iraq war. To have improved on that in numbers of votes polled despite Iraq having receded as an issue, is really quite impressive. It just seems that the big parties were able to out-organise and out-spend in constituencies that mattered. The election only looks bad for the yellow party because they did much worse than the polls suggested.

[DJDonegal]

One person I know voted Tory because he was upset that Labour went to war in Iraq.

I despair for youth awareness in politics.

[Slick Mongoose]

I don't think it's such a bad deal from the Lib Dems. As has been pointed out, not going into the coalition gets them nothing, and I don't see why they'd expect to get many more seats in a future election if they didn't support the Tories.

They've got cabinet posts, a referendum on a voting system change (which would lead to them getting more seats if it was in place), the £10,000 tax threashold (which is a big deal to a lot of people), investment to reduce class sizes, tax on planes rather than passengers, and a few other things. The Lib Dems couldn't expect to get their whole manifesto in, why would the Tories agree to much more than this? Certainly they weren't going to give ground on immigration and the EU.

[Derfel Cadarn]

Police, immigration, general internal affairs not specifically covered by the other portfolios... it's a biggy.

Also MI5.

[VarysTheSpider]

They've got cabinet posts, a referendum on a voting system change (which would lead to them getting more seats if it was in place), the £10,000 tax threashold (which is a big deal to a lot of people), investment to reduce class sizes, tax on planes rather than passengers, and a few other things. The Lib Dems couldn't expect to get their whole manifesto in, why would the Tories agree to much more than this? Certainly they weren't going to give ground on immigration and the EU.

They're also, apparantly, getting partly/wholly PR elections for the Lords, which while probably inevitable at some point, I do find surprising.

[ljkeane]

I'm not particularly happy to see that we've got a Lib Dem in charge of Energy and Climate Change given that their opposition to nuclear power was one of their policies that I found more objectionable.