[Politics] The Liberal Democrats

[davywavy]

There was a point, about a year ago, when the Liberal Democratic Party were the hippest, most jivingest party in the country. Bouyed by Nick Clegg's failure to make a complete tit of himself on national television, LibDem supporters were jubilant, opinion polls briefly put them in second place in the election, and "I agree with Nick" was a catchphrase for, oooh, the best part of a week.

Speaking personally, I've never really considered voting for the LibDems. I always thought they had some really good ideas, but they also had far too many policies which read like they'd been written by someone who'd been kicked in the head by a horse - and it looked like most of the electorate agreed with me, because come the election they'd slipped back to their usual third place. It's arguable that the defection of the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative partty to UKIP had a greater effect upon the outcome of the last election* than did any agreeing with Nick, but thanks to the vagaries of the electoral system we ended up with a Liberal Party in government for the first time in as long as anyone who is young enough to still have all their marbles can remember.

Since then, I've been generally impressed by how the coalition has worked out. I didn't vote for either of the parties involved, but overall I've come to the conclusion that of all the possible outcomes of the election they've turned out to be probably the least worst. George Osborne's economic shortcomings have been bolstered by David Laws and Danny Alexander telling him what to do, whilst the more 'kicked-in-the-head-by-a-horse' LibDem policies have been curtailed by David Cameron laughing until he cries every time they're mentioned. Moreover, the LibDems have got several policies through which most certainly wouldn't have happened under a solely Conservative majority - the raising of the tax threshold to 10k (which is a brilliant policy and will do more to get people into work and out of the poverty trap than Labour managed in 13 years and with all the tax credits you can eat. I'm hoping the economics of raising it to 14k will be in place before the next election), and the ending of the detention of migrant children, for example. Additionally, they've got a shot at their dream of electoral reform.

Despite their successes, the outright rejection of the LibDems by their voters has been impressive to watch. If I'd been a LibDem supporter before the last election, I'd be pretty much delighted at this stage of procedings but it appears I'm missing something about the Liberal Democrat Supporter mindset - and it's what I'm missing that I want to explore. Y'see, I'm generally an optimistic, glass-half-full sort of chap and I find that the world goes my way so rarely that I'm delighted when it does. The outrage from Libdems that their party hasn't been able to acheive their ideal world in eight months flat as part of a compromise government just leaves me baffled, and I'm starting to wonder what the average Liberal Democrat actually wants...
Nick Clegg once said something to the effect that the Libdems weren't a party of government, but their role was to act as the conscience of government and that comment makes me wonder if the LibDems (or their supporters) really ever wanted to get into power, with all the compromises and failures which being in power entails. As I didn't vote for either of the two current governmental parties, I'm aware of the smug self-satisfaction which comes from being able to believe anything I like whilst never having to engage with the consequences of seeing those beliefs enacted or challenged - and I'm kinda coming to the conclusion that the LibDems were the party for people who wanted to feel like that.

It's all really blown up over the pledges, signed by many Libdem candidates, to oppose university tuition fees. Pledges which, in the event, many of those who are now MPs have been unable to keep, to their obvious distress. Higher tuition fees have been coming ever since Polytechnics were allowed to start pretending to be universities in the early 1990s, Tony Blair decided that anyone can go to university no matter how thick they are and finally Gordon Brown getting the economy alone in the changing rooms and saying it had a real purty mouth. It really strikes me that blaming the Libdems for having to break that promise is like being angry that someone who promised to buy you a pint turned up at the pub having been mugged and their wallet stolen. Like Vince Cable wearily said - he's having to live in the real world now.

But this is a serious question to all my Libdem-supporting pals out there. What are the Liberal democrats? Or what did you think they were? Are you a political party, with politics being 'the art of the possible', with all the the grubby compromise that entails? Or were you just the biggest pressure group in the country all along who happened to get unlucky and find yourselves in over your heads when it came down to it? You've got more of your policies enacted in coalition than you otherwise ever would in a million years - why aren't you happy? What were you expecting to happen? What would you like to have happened?
What, in other words, did you actually want in the first place - because I'm darned if I can figure it out from your reactions.

^{*There are twenty seats where the number of UKIP votes exceded the number of votes which would have swung them to the Conservatives. If Cameron hadn't gone back on his EU-referendum promise, I reckon we'd've had an outright Conservative majority.}

Comments

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Actually I take that back. You can have it both ways, because you're in opposition now.

I mean, that was the whole point of the post about the Libdems, so yeah.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Of course you can have it both ways.

Lower tax or some groups, and higher for others.

Re the globalisation analogy - globalisation isn't one thing, the idea is contested (narrative - if you like) - and you can certainly support some aspects but not others.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You say that, but it never actually works out like that in practice. But, like I say, in opposition you can say anything you like.

It's a grand feeling, isn't it?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Well you can. A 10% rate and a 50% rate.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Given that if you're earning over about 65k (coincidentally what MP's earn. Funny that) then paying tax at over 20-21% is kinda optional, what's your plan B?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Is it optional, I don't know at what levels accountants really come into the mix.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You know I'm good at this sort of thing. Give me the benefit of the doubt?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I'm the lobbyist, fella :)

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So you've got no plan B in case your initial economic plan fails. Gosh, you're like George Osborne!

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Isn't that a bit of a non-sequitur

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Matt, you know I'm good at economics. I tell you that your tax plans are easily avoided. You don't believe me, so I ask the reasonable question of what your alternatives are should - heaven forfend! - I be proven right.

C'mon, step up to the plate.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I'm not too shabby at the dismal science myself. I did what was in effect an Economic History degree at LSE - which I rate more highly than an Economics degree

As to rate of tax avoidance - I'd be interested to look at international comparisons of tax rates and tax take. I don't know what they are, do you?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

That's your plan B?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I asked a question..
I understand you're probably better at rhetoric than economic argument.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

Oh, I should have added a smiley face ;)

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Have no fear, I take no offense at online stuff. The only person I know who does is Grim, and he lobbed his toys out of his pram and said I wasn't his internet-friend any more ages ago.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

sadly, that's not suprising

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Dude, I asked what your plan B was, ages ago. You answer with another question and accuse me of rhetoric? J'accuse!

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I questioned your assumptions about tax avoidance and you asked for the benefit of the doubt (that works in the pub, not online)

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

If you think I'm going to explain how tax avoidance works in writing online, you're badly mistaken :)

Okay, so our respective position is, if you were in charge you'd charge people earning over 65k a 50% rate, and I'm saying that if I were earning that much I wouldn't pay it. You can implement that sort of policy - and start spending accordingly - on the assumption I'm wrong if you like, but that strikes me as rash to say the least. In fact, it strikes me as pretty much what just happened.

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I'd be interested how you'd avoid it, i'd be interested in international comparisons, law around tax avoidance, opportunity cost etc...

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[(Anonymous)]

I have a question:

You say you are a still a card carrying member of the Labour Party.

Why?

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I am, fyi I joined in 2007.

I've always been a Labour supporter, however I'm not sure how partisan I am I've voted Lib Dem and actually quite like elements of the coalition, particularly on civil liberties, big society/localism (although I can't stand Eric Pickles and Shapps).

Why I'm still a card carrying member - stubbornness :) to some extent I remember the 80's and carry some of those associated prejudices against the Tories, but positively I think the Labour movement and Party is the best vehicle for the causes that I rank highly : employment work place rights being one of them (the minimum wage is for me is one of the best most humane thing the previous admin did).

What I really support are traditions that exist within the the Labour Party: the co-op, civil liberties (al a Roy Jenkins). I think the Labour Party should look at some of its older mutual traditions - I think EdM is doing that, to some extent.

If I was my current age in th early 80s I would have found it difficult to stay with the Labour Party, and would have probably joined the SDP.




There are also traditions within the party

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[(Anonymous)]

You do realise all the SDP* have been in the Liberal-Democrat Party since 1992, that is why it is called that.

D

(*except Finkelstein)

Re: Sorry, but I don't believe you this time.

[hareb-sarap.livejournal.com]

I did know that - and like I said I have voted Lib Dem. But what would have made me lave Labour in the early '80s were the likes of Benn and Militant - not an issue in the 90's.