[Politics] The Liberal Democrats [2]

[davywavy]

It's been rather interesting watching the way the the LibDems have (or very often haven't) adapted to actually having some degree of power and authority. When presented with a TV camera and asked to justify this or that policy which is actually having an effect on people rather than just being an attractive soundbite, senior members of the party have a tendency to stiffen and look about in a panicky way as if they never expected to be put on the spot and don't know how to deal with it. At the very least, it's good free entertainment.

I've mentioned in the past that they've had a couple of good policy wins in the coalition, but that's not good enough for their supporters - they want their land of milk and honey and they want it now, and the slightest deviation from what the conglomeration of sandal-wearing CND-types, disaffected Labour voters, old-school economic liberals and sundry hangers on who make up the LibDem core vote wants is being met with howls of outrage. Realpolitik meeting unrealistic expectation. I almost feel sorry for them.

The big LibDem policy win is yet to come - the referendum on a change to the voting system from FPTP to AV. Speaking personally, it is a matter of supreme indifference to me which system we use, and intellectually I can see considerable advantages and disadvantages to many different electoral systems. Anyone thinking that changing to AV will make the system more 'fair' is in for another glum feeling of sinking disappointment should it be implemented and it doesn't have the effects they think it should. However, hope springs eternal.

The thing about the word 'fair' is that I've never encountered anyone who uses it who thinks that they'll be worse off in a 'fairer' world. It's a catchall term which can mean anything to anyone, and so is of immense use in politics and the pro-AV crowd are using it with merry abandon. The other phrase I'm seeing wheeled out a lot is the cod-rhetorical question of "But don't you want your vote to count?" because someone read Socratic dialogue for Dummies and decided that asking leading, empty questions is a great way to get people to agree with you. Unfortunately, it isn't. It just makes people think you're a twat.

The big problem faced by the LibDems and the pro-AV campaign is that, if implemented, it would make coalition government a great deal more common in the UK - and that would mean the LibDems becoming the kingmakers more often than not and I'm sure this hasn't passed the LibDems - or anyone else in politics - by. Everyone except the senior LibDems (and especially Vince Cable), that is, who were stuffed like turkeys by the Telegraph the other week. Presented with a pretty girl in a short skirt, Vince promptly lost any sense of discretion and shot his mouth off about anything which came into his head for as long as the girl kept on leaning over in front of him and saying "Oh but that's very interesting, tell me more". Several others did much the same.

And it's this which really makes me worry about AV, and makes me think the case for it has been damaged. Given that coalitions with the LibDems are going to be a lot more common in an AV future, I'd argue that them demonstrating that they're really not very good at working in coalition, or keeping their mouths shut about it, damages their case. Their big hope was to show the world that they were competant and sensible and generally a safe pair of hands, and so telling everyone whilst the tape recorder was running that they aren't was probably a mistake.

I reckon that the AV referendum didn't have much of a chance before now, but this display of foolishness by cabinet members has probably holed it below the waterline. What do you think?

Comments

[davegodfrey.livejournal.com]

AV probably won't make much difference in all honesty. Its not much "fairer" than FPTP. I'm not sure it makes that much difference to likelihood of coalition governments, and it doesn't stop General Elections being decided by a couple of hundred thousand people in specific constituencies. But it opens up the possibility of a referendum on STV for next election. Which is a better system all round. Especially if there's a multi-member version being promoted.

I don't have a problem with more coalitions. I suspect part of the problem is that we haven't had a formal one for decades, so no-one remembers how to do it properly. Plus while the LibDems haven't been quite so vocal about which policies are theirs, which ones the Tories, and which ones they've managed to tone down, as I'd like I think things are better than they would have been without their moderating influence. Possibly.

[(Anonymous)]

I think the bipolar nature of British politics, coupled with the hope springing eternal which is part of the human spirit, will lead to a rejection of AV - no-one wants to dilute their moment in the sun by having to share it with someone else.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I agree. Not just that, but I think the LibDems really had a shot at it, but the combination of the astounding petulance from their own supporters at not getting everything they want this instant and Vince Cables inability to keep a sensible tongue in his head when confronted with a glimpse of bra-strap pretty much means they've blown it.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

I'm also getting this exact same feeling that a lot of Lib Dem supporters, and indeed a few Lib Dem MPs, are really sketchy on how a proper coalition between a large party and a minor party works. I'd also partly ascribe it to Britain's relative lack of experience with coalitions, but in many ways it also seems some Lib Dems have never transcended the identity crisis brought on by the original Lib/SDP alliance -- I mean, sure, the lines have become oddly murky, and Dr Cable is probably a living proof of that, but there's still a discernible division in thought and action between the front bench team, largely filled with Orange Book contributors, and that bevvy of backbench protesters who're more Beveridge Group-y and soi-disant conscience of the left types.

Now, I'm actually reasonably satisfied that Mr Clegg himself knows his party can't be both in the opposition and in government at the same time. But that other brand of Lib Dem have been asked to plough a mighty field of snakes by supporting what is essentially a Tory domestic economic agenda. I do believe Mr Clegg should endeavour to pay more attention to what that wing of the party wants, at least within the constraints imposed upon by the coalition arrangement, or he's going to take an even bigger political hit than he's already taken. It's a straightforward matter of reciprocity.

But it's apparently pretty hard to keep to the centre of gravity within the party and still make real-life policy decisions. The Lib Dems are showing so many of the classic signs of having been out of power literally forever that it's not even funny. For instance, way back in 2008, Mr Clegg told his people that it would be a strategic error to make a high-profile commitment to not raising tuition fees. And he was right. But since it was a Big Deal, and because the election was looming, they persuaded him otherwise, despite the fact that it should've been blatantly obvious doing so would land them in trouble if they'd actually get to be in government with absolutely anyone. It's not terrifically good coalition building, either.

In a very oblique way it all reminds me of Mr Westerwelle's troubles in Germany, although the FDP is a distinctly different kind of party.

[zenicurean.livejournal.com]

As a foreigner, what fascinates me a lot is that the very notion of a Grand Coalition -- vaguely in the German vein -- between Labour and the Conservatives is just utterly unthinkable in British politics. No one would stand for it. It seems as if the two tribes have each gathered upon a misty moor on a moonless night and sworn bloody vengeance upon each other before a wrought image of Margaret Thatcher.

[(Anonymous)]

Your girlish giggles and come hither looks did not persuade me to comment on your last Liberal post and you have blown the gaff now by trying to get a job at the BBC with your Murdoch exposé. You'll never work in Fleet Street again Traitress!

D

[(Anonymous)]

With hindsight, does this mean his increasingly bewildered look here is all down to the presence of the delectable Stephanie Flanders, showing a bit of neck? And not the kicking he's getting off Brillo as I first thought.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ov5yypHYqNk

[colliedlight.livejournal.com]

I keep interpreting AV as audiovisual. And it works, because the Lib Dems very much look like they lurked about in the back of theaters manhandling projectors in their youths.

[danfossydan.livejournal.com]

I think AV is very much wanted by alot of people, for no good reason. I very much like FPTP, and will be turning up to place my mark against that still despite the current issues.

That being said the recent efforts of the LibDem, have actually impressed me. I've always wanted to vote for the Liberal party, but its always been too washed down with social democratic ideals. The ConDem allance, is really ephisisng the Liberal Conservative political ideals I like.

Still can you really vote for someone on recent perfomance, past performance or future promises?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

The th8ing which is amusing me most about the coalition is the way the best econimic policies appear to be the LibDem ones, and the best social policies seem to be the Conservative ones. This entertains me no end.

[danfossydan.livejournal.com]

May be you should vote for the most entertianing outcome? There must be worse reasons to vote.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I tend to vote for the people least likely to dick me over. It gets harder to find anyone who meets that criteria every time.