Compromise difficult to swallow

Nick~

Of course, compromising makes it hard to accept policies that one side [or] the other side want...But, it is worth it to make things (policies) work for the general public...

And, what is being mentioned is all things that could be compromised if the sides were (willing) to do the hard work....

(d)

'compromise is a dirty word to many MPs and party activists. To them it's simply a long-winded way of saying betrayal '

Then they are pretty much in the wrong business, obviously.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

"the Conservative idea of a free vote on fox hunting looks set to be abandoned."

Oh that's too terrible.

I think clegg chose the right historical event. The Con Dems are proposing political reform lite riddled with contradictions and compromises.

Can't really take anything you say seriously anymore, Nick, after your bias during the election campaign. Interesting, though, that since 6 May your briefer and briefer comments have provided much less political bias and much less insight. There is far more information in the headline BBC news articles. You provide no added value.

The big problem is the media comment makers hyping up the differences. There is probably less difference between the center of the Liberal Democrats and the center of the Tory Parties than there is between the extremes of each party..All politics is about coalition

Why bother with elections at all.
Just appoint people with very centrist views and be done with it,Labour got rid of its left and now the Tories are removing its right. and as for the Lib Dems they are a mix of labour right and tory left.

How many girlfriends did you enjoy who occasionally made you want to flip your lid? That's the right analogy. Hopefully you both found the other reasonably horny or else you're off on the wrong track. Hopefully there's a few things, be it ski-ing, dancing, pop music etc etc, that you both like doing together. But there's always a few things, with each one, where you think 'Christ, that's a real problem!'

Course if you end up marrying them it means you worked out a compromise. Blokes usually want sex quicker, but they must respect the pace of the other half if its to work. More women want to hear the 'ILU' button pusher than blokes. There's religion, there's taste in food and wine, there's siblings and potential in-laws. You either sort them out or you split.

Sometimes of course, you just want to learn to be in a stable relationship. That's the most healthy at this time. No talk of marriage, just doing things together efficiently.

If these political animals are still saying they're one-night-standers, well that's fine.

But you usually want them as rock stars, not as politicians.

So Cameron wants to re-write the rules of The 1922 Committee? Its' name commemorates the last time the Tories broke a coalition with Liberals.

And Cameron aspires to be a very Disraelian Tory. So we must recall that the franchise was widened in ther 19th. century to the millions when Disreli stole the Liberals clothes; and adopted the reform they had in mind.

Intersting times, especially for Nick Clegg.

I must say I find it difficult to believe that Clegg's reforms - worthy though I believe them to be - are the biggest shake-up since the 1830s. Women's suffrage is miles ahead, I'm afraid, Deputy Prime Minister.

Cameron has seen the writing on the wall and understands that he has to demonstrate that the Tories can work as part of a coalition, lest they become unelectable or consigned to permanent opposition in the future. With that at stake, dropping a few policies now seems a small price to pay, something I suspect that not all of his backbenchers have realised. Clegg knows that he has to show that his party can make a difference, or it'll be consigned to yet another miserable count of seats next time.

'To them it's simply a long-winded way of saying betrayal - particularly when something they believe in is ditched and something they oppose is adopted'

It's only really a betrayal when you have the choice. If the Tories had won an outright majority and ditched the IHT tax cut, that would have been a betrayal. But given that it wouldn't have gone through anyway then I don't see how the word betrayal really fits. Nor with most of the other compromises that have been made.

4. At 6:59pm on 19 May 2010, sagamix wrote:
"the Conservative idea of a free vote on fox hunting looks set to be abandoned."

Oh that's too terrible.
-----------------------------------------------

Totally agree there... Hopefully the coalition will continue to put a stop on some of the more idiotic ideas mentioned in the election campaign...

"Nick Clegg's chosen the wrong historical milestone since many historians regard the 1832 Act as an attempt to limit or block reform"

Well that just about sums up the Tory attitude to all forms of constitutional reform over the last 50 years.

Liberal Dave is selling his own party out. Tory Nick is selling his party out.

At this stage - can anyone see this lasting 5 years?

2. At 6:29pm on 19 May 2010, JunkkMale wrote:
'compromise is a dirty word to many MPs and party activists. To them it's simply a long-winded way of saying betrayal '

Then they are pretty much in the wrong business, obviously.

-------------------------------------------------------

Again, agree totally. I have to compromise on a daily basis and it will do the politicians no harm to do like wise, who knows, some of them may learn a little along the way and become more balanced individuals...

#4 sagamix

'the Conservative idea of a free vote on fox hunting looks set to be abandoned.'

"Oh that's too terrible."

Lol - perfectly understated as always Mr Sagamix.

Everytime one of the more potty policies of the right gets watered down or ejected into the Thames I will remember those words.

Nick, you talk about compromise, but both parties have listed policies they are unwilling to compromise on. There for it would make sense on major differences to hold a referendum & let the public guide the Coalition on the way they want their Country to go on Human Rights, EU membership, etc. And there lies to problem, no referendum on any policy that they might loose.
Coalition/PR/AV will never deliver what or how the indigenous population want their Country Governed, the failure to deport the 2 terrorists as caused dismay & doubt on the future & effectiveness of the Coalition to Govern.

In a previous post I said that we have two governments:Cameron`s which is consensual and cohesive,visits to Scotland and Wales,the coalition and Frank Field. Clegg cements this with today`s speech. outlining a revision rather than abandonment of the Human Rights Act,voting reform and more (unspecified) devolved powers.Meanwhile Cameron marginalizes his right wingers by downgrading the 1922 committee.

Each of these proposals are radical,taken together they amount to a liberal coup.

The second government is that of Osborne and Laws,According to reports,capital gains tax will be reduced from 28% to 25% for corporations and from 21% to 20% for small business.Meanwhile CGT for individuals,levied on share ownership,second homes and buy to let will be raised from 18% to 40%.

The implication is that small scale capital will be taxed to enhance corporate profits with reduction of around 12%,with smaller businesses benefiting by 5%.

On the face of it these measures undermine the savings of the middle class who put the conservatives in power and jeopordize the soothing messages coming from the top by opening up areas of conflict between middle class and elite.Little wonder Cable in uncomfortable.I wonder if he`ll get his bank reforms?

I think many politicians and even commentators haven't yet 'got it' - the electorate decided the nature of our government - not Clegg or Cameron - they are just enacting what we want - getting our finances in order and a government that reflects the very different aspirations of our community. It's not about one side winning or losing but what we can do together in the next 5 years. Politicians often talk about change and often mean change for others. This time the electorate have turned the tables and are demanding change from the politicians and they will not be forgiven if they fail to deliver. So stop looking at the different manifestos and focus on the coalition agenda because that distills the requirements of the voters - a bit of blue and a bit of orange and what is wrong with that?

The Lib Dems and Conservatives should remember that the alternative to coalition is opposition. Purists should go off and join a protest group. With a coalition, at least some aims are achieved and the only way the Labour party can appear different is to drift leftwards and lose marginal voters.

Plenty of posts since the election along the lines of "When I voted Lib-Dem I did not vote for Tory policy X, never voting Lib-Dem again ..."

It seems like some of those who are most opposed to the idea of compromise are also those in favour of the kind of electoral reform which would lead to permanent coalition and compromise.

I am not concerned with compromise per se, parties can often be reluctant to change policies even when cicumstances change, for fear of losing face and being accused of "u-turns". Coalition allows them to do this easily under the guise of compromise.

I am concerned with a referendum on AV, this was not in either party's manifesto and can produce a more skewed result than FPTP.

" I confess that I have just committed a terrible historical crime. On the telly I said that the 1832 Great Reform Act had extended the franchise to millions - that is, of course, a wild exaggeration. The franchise was extended by a few hundred thousands. The millions had a while longer to wait."
Typical man!!!

Nick's eleventy-billionth blogpost questioning whether the coalition will work. Here's a thought, why not give it a chance eh?

The 1832 reform extended property rights to some urban householders as a qualification to vote.

It`s inadequacy was shown almost immediately by the explosion of popular protest known as the chartists who advocated a universal franchise independent of property rights.

Its demands excluded women,full adult female suffrage was only achieved in 1928

An interesting question will arise if people actually do like this coalition government.

People won't actually be able to vote for the status quo at the next election (unless Francis Rossi or Rick Parfitt decide to stand.

#21 pen2epaper

"With a coalition, at least some aims are achieved and the only way the Labour party can appear different is to drift leftwards and lose marginal voters."

Or be united behind a single unifying policy platform that addresses the concerns of people, presented by a fresh-faced new leader.

Being able to deep six some of the loony stuff - the IHT cut and the hunting vote, for example - and blame it on the LDs is a real boon for Mr Cameron. No way it was going to happen in any case. In this sense, he's better off with his "liberal" Coalition than he would have been with a narrow overall majority. He'd tell us that himself, if he could.

17 Voice_of_Reason

Why is a free vote on the fox hunting ban right-wing?

I am flummoxed.
I would’ve thought that thre Coalition Government would be up to their necks in financial matters, or has the UK opted out of the G20?
Instead they are talking about "reforms" – what to reform, what not to reform.
I just don’t get it!
On the economy few Conservatives like the idea of high tax rates for capital gains on the sale of second homes or shares - few Lib Dems cherish the idea of cutting public spending now. I thought cutting the spending now was already decided – approved by Mervyn King and the BoE.
There's billions to be cut, right?
Interesting then that this evening David Cameron surprised his MPs - by inviting them to re-write the rules of what in the past has been the powerful 1922 Committee (Tory backbenchers). Cameron's proposing that now loyal ministers should take part too.
What is this 1922 Committee?
In 1922 the coalition between the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party in The United Kingdom was breaking down. Despite Liberal's willingness to continue, the Conservatives formally ended the pact. This led to some organisational changes that needed to be made within the Party, the most important of these was the forming of the Conservative and Union Members Committee, which became the principle organisation within the Conservative Party. Often called the 1922 committee, it is a sort of trade union for Tory MPs in which they can discuss what the general consensus of the backbenchers is to be. It is the rough equivalent of the Labour Party's PLP (Parliamentary Labour Party) but is less inclusive. When the Conservatives are in power, Ministers do not have the right to attend unless specifically invited. When in opposition, all members of the Party are allowed to attend, and it is from the 1922 committee that the Shadow Cabinet is formed.
What does it do?
The duties of the 1922 committee are as follows:
To inform the party leadership of the mood of Tory Backbenchers
To rally support for Conservative policy
To lend support to Conservative members of the cabinet or shadow cabinet deemed to be fulfilling the demands of their position and to decide what action must be taken with regard to those on who are not.
Under the reforms instigated by William Hague, if 15% of the Conservative Members of Parliament submit a letter demanding a vote of confidence in the current leader to the Chairman of the Executive Committee, a vote is triggered. Should the leader be ousted, the Chairman is in charge of running the election of a new Tory leader and appointing him or her to office.
And then there's Nick Clegg. Has he chosen the wrong historical milestone since many historians regard the 1832 Act as an attempt to limit or block reform?
Who cares? Is this the best leadershop that we can expect from the Coalition Government – big banging election reforms from Clegg (well-thought-out or not), 1922 Committee reform from Cameron? What next? Fiddling while the UK deficit soars out of sight?
I have to ask: Do these guys know what to do wuith the power they've got?

Schoolboy George now wants to give more cash to big business.

https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/10128391.stm

Not content with cancelling the NI hike for businesses but not for ordinary people the Tories have come up with this masterstroke.

While those on low and modest incomes pay for the deficit the big corporations will be raking in larger profits.

Thats the Tories I remember.

27 Voice_of_Reason

Or be united behind a single unifying policy platform that addresses the concerns of people, presented by a fresh-faced new leader.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Which of the middle-class white men will you be voting for?

#AS71

"Why is a free vote on the fox hunting ban right-wing?"

Well - how many on the left support the fox-hunting ban?

And how many on the right support the fox-hunting ban?

Its probably one of the most polarised issues you can get next to Europe - although as with any issue - you do get dissenters on both political sides of aisle.

28 Sagamix

I can see the attraction of coalition for politicians - power without responsibility. Maybe Blunkett's comment on Clegg were accurate!

33 Voice_of_Reason

Then why are the anti-hunting lobby so concerned by it? Maybe it's not so clear cut ?

#32 AS71

"Which of the middle-class white men will you be voting for?"

I haven't got a vote. Not a member.

I think either Miliband would be good - Burnham is a possibility but he needs to raise his profile so the long campaign may suit him. Balls is probably the least desirable as he is already unpopular with a lot of the public.

Hi Nick. You will agree that Liberalism is not a principal political colour, or ideology or driving force. Could be considered as a kind of Reformism . Liberalism is a coalition of the mildly labours and mildly conservatives (the adjacent shades at the borderline between labour and conservatives, making a centre). Mixing white and black can only make grey which is not an essential colour of the light spectum . That is why they are fluidy and have more "liberty" to join forces with either ,in an opportunistic manner and attract more of the non-partisan voters.While no one can ever think of a coalition between Labour and Tories not even in the wildest dreams ,it hapened during the War for obvious reasons .Liberals don't represent a class of definite interests. Liberals don't represent a class of definite interests. It is true that the Liberals are a cross section of the society but they don't represent a specific class. Had they stayed with their respective class and its representing party ,they could have been more effective as reformists. This political escapism has made possible their previous coalition with labour and now with the conservatives .Likewise there are politicians who had been liberals and conservatives at different times of their political career.
I wOnder why do people are wOndering about the current coalition , and as to why the liberals wAnder.

Nick
I am getting fed up with journalists like yourself that are desperate for this coalition to fail because it will make a better news story than if it succeeds.

Compromise is in the very nature of civilised society. Is it better for a family if one parent is elected dictator. Is it better for a PLC if the Chairman of the board of directors becomes the dictator of the company? If he is not challenged?

If most of a coalition agree on something then it is probably worth doing. If 50% disagree then it is probably not worth doing.

Life is all about compromises. Grow up and accept it.
This idea of coalition (aka a balanced parliament) is the best thing that has happened in decades. It's biggest threat is cynical journalists like yourself that are desperate to widen any cracks that appear.

Please stop trying to promote your own career and give the coalition a chance.

VOR 31

Yes I remember those pre 1997 days - when business was profitable, unemployment falling, manufacturing growing, exports increasing, productivity improving, wages rising, the deficit narrowing, debt reducing. All anethema to the left of course but not to most ordinary folk.

If the Tories get this right then Labour could face another 18 year period in the wilderness :).

36 VoR

Would tend to agree.

Balls really struggled on PM this evening, the question was something along the lines of "Which of Gordon Brown's policies over the last 3 years have you been in disagreement with?" and he struggled for 5 minutes to answer. Unles he can re-define himself away from Brown then his campaign is dead in the water.

Burnham seems capable but lacks charisma.

As a right-wing type (economically speaking - not really interested in hunting), I will therefore be campaigning for Balls!

sagamix 28

'In this sense, he's better off with his "liberal" Coalition than he would have been with a narrow overall majority. He'd tell us that himself, if he could'

You're missing the really big prize. Being able to undo the damage of 13 years of New Labour without the nasty party tag being pinned on them. Of course the left will try, but Nick Clegg, nasty ? Vince Cable anything other than a saint ? Whose going to take that seriously ?

I guess next week Lib Dem's will be joining the 1922 Committee!

Ed Balls for Labour leader and Harriet Harman for deputy. As a right winger I would really hate that. I do hope that Labour don't elect these people. That would really upset me no end and a lot of other right wingers. Labour would have a great chance of winning the next election if they were elected. I hope no Labour party members read this.

A successful compromise is one that leaves all the involved parties equally dissatisfied.

I think most of our 'regulars' know that I am politically independent and in my mind will accept or reject ideas from the left, right, authoritarian or libertarian positions, if it might/might not work in England, which I view as politically distinct from Scotland and Wales.

Before this General Election, I suggested on this blog that politics in England did not have to be 'tribal' and so am pleased with this tiny 'coalition' step towards a consensual political approach in England taken by the Tories and Lib-Dems.

We have had decades of strife, translate as getting nowhere fast, via the adversarial approach, but this new political situation is disorientating to many people.

Even the political cartoonists seem to be struggling, for example, Peter Brookes in The Times, is taking a pretty lame idea of Clegg being Camerons poodle and needs to find a different angle.

Maybe consensual politics does not give the cartoonists much mileage!

Compromise is the name of the game.

The 1832 Reform Act was simply a mild response to social changes. The newly emerged middle class wanted the vote, as well as the working class. I would say that it was an attempt to limit reform. MP's thought by giving in to some popular demand it would settle the calls for reform. The aristocracy aimed and succeeded in preserving their dominance. Parliament had no genuine interest in reform. They resisted reform throughout the years of Chartism. It wasnt till MP's like Gladstone recognised the respectability of the working class in 1866, that the cause for reform became acceptable. Before, the working class were all considered lunatics who threatened a revolution for reform. Then the likes of Disraeli backed reform largely due to party political interest. Certainly there were changed attitudes amongst politicians who had a more Liberal approach though!
Perhaps Clegg should have chosen the Third Reform Act, 1884-5 which was far more significant!

#43 jobsagoodin

"Ed Balls for Labour leader and Harriet Harman for deputy. As a right winger I would really hate that. I do hope that Labour don't elect these people. That would really upset me no end and a lot of other right wingers. Labour would have a great chance of winning the next election if they were elected. I hope no Labour party members read this."

As subtle as a brick through a window.

It is not surprising that Dave wants to neuter his own backbenchers by packing the 1922 committee with members on the government payroll, because they are the main threat to the Nick and Dave show.

It is likely that the Tories will have a honeymoon over the next few months and their poll rating will rise above their share of the vote at the election. The Lib Dems will not share in this because they have lost their left wing support. Labour with a brand new leader and Lib Dem voters returning to the fold might also be looking good.

Even in the rather unlikely event of the 55% rule being in place, a rebellion of around 50 Tory backbenchers could be enough to bring the coalition down and force a dissolution.

Would this not be rather tempting for Tory diehards?

Tedious histotical view follows, sorry...The 1832 Act may not have extended the franchise by millions but it destroyed the idea the constitution was perfect, eroded the primacy of property as the sole basis for political power and most importantly showed that political reform need not lead to a replay of the French revolution.

It was followed by c.50 years of broadly Liberal, reforming Government. Disraeli had to steal the reforming clothes to get back into the game.

I think politicians in 1830-32 would have been quite surprised to hear it was an attempt to block reform!

Nick, I admit it is a while since I studied it but I think you should read up a bit on this - it's pretty fundemental to our political system and the history of the Tory party. It's also interesting in its own right - unexpected dissolutions, 4 hour speeches in the Lords by a radical Lord Chancellor fortified by port and egg, the whiff of revolution in the air, talk of the army being used...

re #31
The best way to give money to business is to give it to all of us by consistently easing back on transport taxes over the next year or so. Switching the tax to the highest level of income tax would make a lot of sense although an extra adjustment might be needed to make up for lost Treasury cash-flow. In Osborne's place, I would drop the fuel duty by 2p a month for at least a year, probably much longer.

The enviromentalists will get ratty but cranking up transport costs has done nothing to reduce vehicle emissions. The inflation reduction gains will ease a lot of the pressures elsewhere. If we are running 3 to 4 per cent inflation in the autumn it will trigger bigger pension rises. Then early in 2011, the new Council Tax bills will be reflecting local authorities' and emergency services' transport costs.

Finally, Osborne and the Coalition have got to realise that taxing petrol and diesel will not be an option in five to ten years time. They will have to wean themselves off that income stream now, 'cos its gonna disappear - soon!

It is one thing to have noble ambitions for your country, quite another to bring them to fruition. Clegg would like to get rid of useless laws and we, the people, get to choose which ones! What does this mean in practice? - are we to have a referendum on each statute in the book! A bit expensive given the state of the public finances. Ok - second best option then - get unelected experts in civil liberties to "advise" government on what should go. Then get your party/ies, newly bound by new whipping rules and fear of losing power, to approve the advice chosen by the coalition leaders. I cannot see how this outcome is superior to the last process through which we got the original useless laws through the previous Parliament. Forgive me for not being cynical enough to believe that all politicians before Nick and Dave were crooks which were hell bent on taking away my civil liberties. I actually think that, by and large, they acted to the best of their ability. Before the coalition can claim superiority they need to show that they can actually govern better than their predecessors - less talk and more action - we will judge you when the time comes.

Just a point about the forthcoming Labour Party election for a new leader, which will probably it will end up being either David Milliband or his brother Ed.

In other words chi-chi Islington champagne socialists, which is fine for England but about as welcome as a cup of cold sick in Scotland.

As far as I can tell, the Scottish Labour Party is beginning to 'devolve' itself from its English counterpart.

PS. Thanks to the excellent Brian Taylor 'Blether with Brian' blog for that insight.

jobsagoodin wrote that pre-1997 he remembers prosperity, low unemployment, rising exports etc. Funnily enough my recollections include record numbers of bankruptcies, house repossessions, the replacement of the hated Poll Tax with the hastily contrived Council Tax and the disastrous privatising of publicly owned concerns - pure giveaways - all in the name of spreading shareholding. Most shares in the privatised concerns finished up in the hands of the institutions in short order. Perhaps the worst case of all was the railways. Since being removed from public ownership the railways have started to pay dividends for the first time since the beginning of the 20th Century - thanks to huge subsidies from the taxpayer. Significantly the German national railway Deutsche Bahn owns Chiltern Rail - but only the German Government owns shares in Deutsche Bahn - and nobody else can buy those shares.

I do wonder, what planet was jobsagoodin on in the early Nineties or did some other substance cloud his memories?

2010, jobsagoodin wrote:
sagamix 28

'In this sense, he's better off with his "liberal" Coalition than he would have been with a narrow overall majority. He'd tell us that himself, if he could'
You're missing the really big prize. Being able to undo the damage of 13 years of New Labour without the nasty party tag being pinned on them. Of course the left will try, but Nick Clegg, nasty ? Vince Cable anything other than a saint ? Whose going to take that seriously ?"

It seems ungracious to find points of disagreement during the honeymoon.Some as I have already written are structural,bonuses for the managers and owners of large corporations paid for out of the small capital gains of middle class savers.But before this grievance is articulated by the loyalists in the3 country who will be damaged by it,there is a source of more imediate resentment.

Nick Clegg,with his 55 seats and his flaky electoral support is making the political weather.claiming another 1832 as if he is responsible for the next seminal moment of political change.Meanwhile the tory party in parliament loses valuable prime ministerial patronage,a traditional source of back bench compliance while the 1922 committee is neutered so as to allow a liberal consensus to take hold.

They have 55 seats you chaps,less than 1/10.It`s a coup,but not a conservative coup.

NR: 'Coalition involves compromises.'

Er, I think all of politics involves compromises, does it not? Unless one is a dictator with unfettered powers.

New Labour, with a massive majority, compromised on some things, transport policy for one. Even the Iron Lady made a compromise or two, although they tended to be minor. So minor, that at 22.32, I can't think of any. Shame she did not compromise on the Community Charge.

Oh dear! The CBI's John Cridland has just been talking about corporation tax on The World Tonight, apparently with his metaphorical blinkers on tax firmly in place.

Nick
Not one terrible historic crime - but two. The 1922 committee was actually formed in 1923 - by the new intake of Tory MPs elected in the 1922 general election as a kind of new boys club (there were no girls - Lady Astor, the only woman MP was elected in 1919). It's true that this election was triggered by Tory MPs rebelling against the coalition with Lloyd George - but by definition the original members of the 1922 committee were not MPs when the coalition broke down.

20. At 8:31pm on 19 May 2010, Paul Newman wrote:
I think many politicians and even commentators haven't yet 'got it' - the electorate decided the nature of our government - not Clegg or Cameron - they are just enacting what we want -
=============

I disagree, and that was Heseltine's line from Question Time, only the Lib-Dem voters voted for being Kingmakers and

a) They lost seats
b) from what I can gather they wanted the King to be from Labour.


so this Coalition is basically the fruit of the Clones Blair of both parties, in fact a cynical person could see this as them both preserving their own necks, as both would have been in danger of losing their jobs had they not done a deal. I'm prepared to wait and see , although things are not looking good already, particularly the fact that Mr Speaker got re-elected when he was an apologist for the sleaze of the previous parliament.

The real fun starts when (and IF) Osborne reveals the true size of our debts, and if the number of 'Letters of Direction' reputedly written in the fag end days of Brown's Government turns out to be correct and we get to see them. Failure to show why we should be taxed to death could be the undoing of the coalition, for as taxed to death appears to be on the Agenda there had better be a good obvious reason for it.

Bill Cash on Newsnight tonight - very amusing.

Cameron getting slated for anti-demcratic changes to the 1922 committee.

And for the anti-democratic 55% change.

Add to that the Lib Dems wanting Opposition money for being in government.

New politics?

My ar5e!!!

#45 JohnConstable

"Even the political cartoonists seem to be struggling, for example, Peter Brookes in The Times, is taking a pretty lame idea of Clegg being Camerons poodle and needs to find a different angle."

You are joking.

The cartoonists are going to have a field day and already are - with Clegg being a puppet or a poodle - with David Laws being a caged bird etc etc

And they haven't even DONE anything yet!!

They can't agree within their own parties - never mind with each other. Compromise? More like fudge, muddle and mess.

New politics is already being ridiculed because it is obviously self-serving - particularly when the Lib Dems and Tories are looking to appoint 200 peers - particularly when they are trying to 'fix' parliament for self-interest so it can't be dissolved - and particularly when the Liberals are wanting to get opposition money for being in government.

New politics sounds like a corrupt stitch up between Cons and Lib Dems - and thats because it is.

38. At 9:26pm on 19 May 2010, edwardjecle wrote:
Life is all about compromises. Grow up and accept it.

=========

You only compromise what you have no faith in, which is interesting seeing what Camerion has compromised on.

Reported on BBC Newsnight.... now the Libdems want to keep getting their short money £1.5 Million (tax payers money given to opposition parties ONLY.)which they have lost as they are now in Government!! After you with the trough :-)

55 Up2snuff

Compromise was never on the agenda with Mrs Thatcher and to be fair didn't need to be. Armed with Hayek and Friedman she knew which direction the country needed to move in, Labour was a shambles and could offer no serious opposition.

On the other hand, Labour compromised on many key beliefs it had - public ownership, unilateral nuclear disarmament etc - in order to get elected again. It was their move to the right that ended ideological politics in the UK really, Labour now accepted the free market - indeed some were "intensely relaxed" about people becoming filthy rich.

Cameron felt that he had to compromise some key Tory beliefs to get elected, which would be the logical concluson to 3 straight defeats. Hence, much less ideological commitment to "rolling back the state" and more focus on traditional Labour territory of helping the needy. Although interestingly, Tory poll ratings increased when tax cuts were announced!

Not before time, things are about to change - get used to it!

I wonder if Nick Clegg's choice of the 1832 Reform Act as a reference has an unconscious message: it was proposed by the Whigs - his party's great-great grandpapa - and fiercely opposed by the Tories!

The better reference, as it was the bigger reform, would indeed have been the one about which you were thinking: the 1867 Reform Act; this, however, was proposed by the Tories, but needed the Liberal Party to pass it. Plus ca change...

The other lesson that may be learned from this time: Disraeli, then Tory leader, presumed that the passing of the Act by would make new voters feel well-disposed to the party that had given them the vote; the Tories in fact lost the very next election.

#39 jobsagoodin

"Yes I remember those pre 1997 days - when business was profitable, unemployment falling, manufacturing growing, exports increasing, productivity improving, wages rising, the deficit narrowing, debt reducing. All anethema to the left of course but not to most ordinary folk."

Lol - the Tories want to give tax cuts to big business - including the banking industry that did so much to harm our economy - and you think thats a good idea?

Whilst VAT rates will likely go up, capitals gains will increase, national insurance will rise, doubtless other indirect taxes will increase and support for families through tax credits will be cut.

Osborne has already sidelined Vince because he didn't like his anti-bank rhetoric - and now the banks will be the biggest beneficiaries of his corporate tax changes.

Are these the priorities of the British people? Do we really want our vital services cut in order to ensure the big banks make a bigger profit and pay larger bonuses to their reckless gamblers and speculators?

As more and more details of this "coalition of the willing" leak out, it seems more and more like their top priority is to barricade David Cameron inside No.10 to ensure that - at the very least - he outstays Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. First we hear about the outrageous plans to zip-up parliament with the 55% thing and now David Cameron is trying to quash dissent from his own backbenches by silencing the 1922 committee. And while all this is going on, the Lib Dems are looking for sneaky ways to get their grubbly little mits on the public purse to keep their party running. So much for the new politics..

The majority of people I've spoken to don't really want the media - this means you particularly Nick - trying to talk up disagreement. The electorate didn't decide to have a hung parliament (we didn't all get together and agree how to cast our votes to end up with this situation), it just turned out that way. (It seems to me that, at the last minute, many people who were going to vote Lib Dem got cold feet about the increasing probability of a hung parliament - driven by media concerns as much as the other parties alarmist rhetoric - and voted for their second choice instead, but we still ended up with the "undesired" outcome).

Did the Lib Dem voters who now deride betrayal really want to have Lib Dem policies ignored completely - or have at least some of those policies influence the actions of the government? Would the Tories who shout betrayal prefer to be in opposition to a Labour-Lib Dem coalition rather than being in the driving seat (albeit with a degree of passenger influence on the route and even the destination). Can't Labour voters see the Coalition as being less damaging to their policy preferences than an unbridled Tory government?

I'd really like to hear the magical way that you can put in place a majority government that matches the policy wishes of the electorate more effectively than the current coalition. If you can't, then find a new topic instead of trying to undermine the coalition.

If we re-ran the General election several times and still ended up with a hung parliament, would we then be allowed to accept a "compromise"? What are you trying to do Nick? Get the GE re-run until the Tories are elected with a majority?

#68 Mike F

Look who is dancing to a Scottish tune right now.

You can thank the comprehensive rejection of the Tories by the Scots for this coalition and this hung parliament.

Without the 59 MPs Scottish you would have a majority Tory government right now.

Send the cheques north of the border asap!

Election result (minus Scotland):
Tories 306
Labour 217
Lib Dems 46
Others 22

Nick,
brush up on your British history!

It isn't the Great Reform Act, but the Reform Acts!

To insist otherwise is:

1. Equate the history of England and Wales with that of all of Britain.

2. Is historically and constitutionally inaccurate.

3. Completely ignores the seperate Scottish Reform Act of 1832 passed at Westminster:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Reform_Act_1832

4. Makes a mockery of the first initial of BBC.

Please feel free to point this out to the Deputy Prime Minister. He clearly doesn't understand British constitutional history either.

What a Wedding!

The honeymoon's not even over yet, Dave and Nicky are still twirling a waltz but the in-laws are starting to take sides. How long before the brawl I ask?

Dave's oldies have had a few drinks now and are beginning to loosen up, Uncle Billy Cash was heard speaking his mind at the bar. He can be a beggar when he gets going.

Nicky's lot are worried he was vunerable in the wirlwind romance and he has been taken advantage of, poor chap they say, hungry for love.

Gossip is circulating that Nicky and Dave may have problems in the bedroom department, apparently they like different things (struth!). Nicky (for now)is doing his best to oblige Dave (thinking of England of course). Dave's lot think he could have done much better and are now questioning his choice of bride, she's not that classy they say. He was much better single, was overheard when they were cutting the cake. Nicky's lot were heard complaining that their slices seemed much smaller than Dave's lot. Dave seems pretty good with that knife!

I'm getting out of here before they trash the place :)

Nick,

Re #70

Not to mention the separate Irish Reform Act of 1832:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Reform_Act_1832

The usual anti elitist anti foxhunting do-gooders, happy as ever to see the demise of something else quintessentially British, should get straight whether foxes are dangerous vermin or not and whether shooting or gassing them is or is not the biggest cruelty of all. None of that matters though to these plebs--it's the patricians having fun whilst achieving their purpose that they so hate.

'Update: I confess that I have just committed a terrible historical crime....
Feel free to continue that argument here.'

Of course, from what I understand to be the case, without... the author taking part.

Don't know about fox hunting, but Mr. R seems to like going fishing, and for fun not fodder, with a hand grenade.

Lob it in, hope for maximum destruction, be blithely unconcerned about consequences and the stroll off to the next pond without a backward glance.

Odd sport.

Camera-on’s actions since his election as leader show that he will not tolerate dissent.
He’s after power, and ONLY power.
He’s his own man
He’s a family man, through and through
He’s intense, not relaxed (hence a previous heavy smoker)
He will do whatever is necessary to get it and keep it, for a slong as possible
He’s intensely loyal to his friends - however unsuitable and incompetent they may be
He p155es off (almost on sight) as many as he impresses - from all demographics
Typical Etonican, in fact!

He’ll go down as a truculent, power-obsessed leader who both transformed and split his party - but who also re-aligned UK politics.

Britain in 2015 will be VERY different, in virtually EVERY way - socially, politically, economically.

Whether that’s for the good only time will say; probably a mixture of both. Pushing the State back can only be good; cutting the high-tax, high-benefit culture can only be good; near-full Devolution will be bad; new Commons good, new HoL - well, we’ll see; ‘events’ - again, we’ll see.

Neither I, nor any of our typical ’shire Conservative’ people can stand him - too devious and ‘all things to all men’

Lost it for us when he would never, ever, even 24 hrs before the election REALLY spell out the ‘red-line’ policies and what he was DETERMINED to do and what he fundamentally believed in.

Now we know - just like the worst of Bliar - all he cares about is power.

NOT ‘power as a means to achieve a better Britain for….(insert specific group(s)’ - and we’ll all have our own views on what that is.

Just ‘power’. I’d not like to be the one to break it to him that he could have won the election with a 30-40 seat majority if only he had spelled out EXACTLY what he stood for and then repeated over and over again what he was going to do to achieve that.
‘Debt is £1.5 trillion; services are going to be cut 80%, taxes up 20% to change current Govt spending by £120 to £150 billion a year
within 3 years.
That’s going to mean a fundamental, and permanent, change to what the State can do, both for your area, and for you personally.’

It’s his ducking and diving over 4 years any any and all policy issues which has enabled him to do a deal with Clegg so easily. What he has done, though, is to cut himself off from all grass-roots Conservatives, who are naturally free-market, anti-EU, ‘hang ‘em and flog ‘em’ on crime, and want higher standards of education and are prepared to pay for them - IF taxes are cut to allow them more freedom over their own lives.

He’s staked the entire Westminster Party on his grand project succeeding - he hopes for 20% Labour, 40% LibCon, 20% UKIP by 2020

Time will tell!

The critical thing is that the government is there to work for the public at large, not to satisfy the narrow self-interests of MPs or party activists. Cameron and Clegg should hold their nerve, and stop worrying about how what they are doing goes down with their parties. The public remain 100% behind the coalition and that's what matters.

4. At 6:59pm on 19 May 2010, sagamix wrote:
"the Conservative idea of a free vote on fox hunting looks set to be abandoned."

Oh that's too terrible.
-----------------------------------------------

Yes heavens help us if we introduce democracy into the decision making process.

Behind you on this one David Kidd!

What is most worrying about all and any decisions that both the Government and the Opposition-leader-contenders face is the vociferous and fear-inducing comments in the right-wing press. There seems to be little reliance on true evidence in said press, and it is difficult for any politician to argue with these comments, as it seems that much of the general public believes the media, and not the politicians. In fact, many of the politicians, if seen to argue with the conclusions reached by such non-evidence-based comments are then labelled as liars and panderers to Political Correctness. How do they govern, or work in opposition, and try to please the right-wing press at the same time? Is it possible? Is it right for such press to label themselves as the voice of the people? Are they the voice of the people? Or do they lead and the masses follow? I believe of course, that the media should inform, and people should reach their own conclusions, but is that happening in this country, or are opinions used as evidence, and so people's opinions are decided by many of our right-wing press?

Knowing the plans that this government has for the Labour Party spin machine, aka The BBC, any and all shreds of invective will be the weapon of choice for the overstuffed ranks of publicly funded Guardian readers infesting the massive corporation hierarchy down at Broadcasting House.
Compromises work well. They take the edge off the most unpalatable extremism. Any successful marriage is based on compromise and this coalition is no different.
Sorry Nick, talk it down as much as you like, clutch at any straw you like, the BBC's days are numbered.

Compromise is not in fact a dirty word, it is quite innocent othr than the associations that have been foisted upon it by association with politicians. Somewhat like politics itself which has similariliy suffered from its association with human beings.
Compromise is in fact what all human beings do, all day every day, and is a grown up response within politics, recognising realities and making joint commitments (CO-PROMISE) to work through difficulties, problem-solving and generally hoping to make a better future. Whether it makes them happy or not is a different question.

Compromises work well if people give them a chance . We have had years of Tory and then Labour Goverments who just railroaded policies through Parliment . Maybe I will loose some of the things I voted for but I may get other things that are better . This country is in a mess MPs of all Parties should make compromises and do things together for the good of the country to ensure we dont end up in a bigger mess .

Johnwilkes , your comment has given my day a lift!

I do hope your final sentence comes to fruition, I am so tired of so called " experts" trundled out to defend the previous incumbents and to attack an embryonic coalition within its first few weeks, happily forgetting the financial state in which they find the country.

I am so tired of the drivelling on about the Labour leadership election - an event so far into the future and with so much at stake for the country prior to that, I will happily suppress my enthusism as to which Milliband the BBBC prefers and which the BBBC will promote to win.

It's the compromises that are the the strength of this government.

Instead of seeing Labour constantly under attack from the Conservatives and Lib Dems we have the Conservatives and Lib Dems working together with members of the Labour Party like Frank Field being allowed into government as a specialist with something to offer in specific areas.

The atmosphere of the House Of Commons is decidely different and Harriet Harman's reply expressing the need for strong opposition was unemotional and civil.It will be nice to see reasoning politicians in the House instead of the usual yelling MPs though I accept that it is early days yet so things may change.

Hopefully the compromises will reduce the severity of more extreme measures or completely eradicate them altogether.Getting policies into legislation which everyone can accept & support provides strong, stable government and improves things for the people.Nobody will get everything they want but all three parties may get something from their manifestos by supporting those parts of the government's plans which they agree with.

David Cameron & Nick Clegg need to take things a day at a time, noting criticisms and feedback, adjusting the clauses of their policies where they can to secure greater agreement and support.Listening is going to be their major strength which is something that you have to do when making compromises.

The next year is going to be very interesting and I do hope that people will be more open-minded of late to give the government a chance to work appreciating the good they do rather than nitpicking.It's a case of half a loaf is better than none and the glass is half full rather than half empty.In time we may get the rest of the things we are looking for.

This 2015 general election campaign is getting rather fascinating, I must say. Don't think Cameron will be too concerned about criticism from the right of his party; part of the plan, I'd imagine. Makes things difficult for Labour if he keeps things super moderate. Force them left, and everyone knows you can't get in from there; not enough people like me around. By the same token, sacrifice some of the patio vote to UKIP, which is fine - not enough of them either. Plenty on this blog, but not in the public at large. The economy, as always, is key: the Coalition needs it to get better, but not too quickly - if it picks up this year, say, (or even next year) it'll be way too obvious that Gordon Brown's policies were the right ones. They need it to get worse - preferably a lot worse - and not to recover until 2014. Expect policies to bring this about, therefore - deep public spending cuts and swingeing tax rises. All about the electoral cycle, but it will be done under the guise of deficit reduction - so watch out for weasel words from George Osborne and the like; words such as "restoring the public finances". Very clever politics. And deeply deeply cynical.

'compromise is a dirty word to many MPs and party activists. To them it's simply a long-winded way of saying betrayal '....... then maybe they should go into some other business, no, they should go into some other business. As Janet Street-Porter remarked, on national television, it's about time they grew up.

Compromise can mean agreement reached by mutual concession by all the people involved. It can also mean in derogatory terms, you make a compromise on principles to achieve what you want.

As the first cannot be true of the Coalition because not all the people in the Conservative Party or the Lib/Dem Party were involved in the agreement made to form the Coalition, it must therefore be the second.

So suddenly all the people of principle within a left-wing party and a right-wing party have to give up all the principles they went into politics for, to form a coalition. The public needs to make up its mind, first they wanted people of principle, now the public say they must give them up. With the best will in the world you cannot stop politicians that have believed in certain important issues all their life, in a lot of cases, to just stop believing in their core values. Just as the public stick to political parties out of belief, so do politicians.

The only agreement in this Coalition is in the political elite at the top, who are more interested in power than in policy. I would not expect any ordinary politician I had voted for, to agree to something he had not compaigned for or believed in. Otherwise it just makes a complete mockery of the whole system.

The public did not vote for a Coalition, England voted decisively for the Conservatives and the devolved Countries voted along their tribal lines. One only has to look at the outcome of the election on a political map to understand this. Therefore it leaves Britains democracy in a mess. Forcing change on parties by those at the top does not lead to compromise it leads to discontent, as many are left without representation within their own party.

Cameron and Clegg have forgotton the first rule of a politician and that is to listen. I do not recall on my voting paper requesting Clegg to be the great reformer. Nor do I recall asking Cameron to go around promising the devolved Governments no cuts for at least a year and extra money, at a time when the pain should be shared, in order to keep their support.

The only remit this Coalition should have had is to come to agreement to sort the economy out. The core principles of the parties should have remained in place and the parties separate. Lets face it if the political leaders cared about Britain and their parties values, thats exactly what they would have done. Not tried to force this farce of a Coalition. Gaining power at any price is what dictatorships do not a democracy. At some point the problem of the devolved Governments will have to be addressed and it is pretty obvious that if Camerons recent actions are anything to go by, he will not be the one to do it. This is totally at odds with what Cameron was saying about the devolved Governments when he was in opposition.

One would have thought the public would have been tired of the political scene where certain politicians make up their own agenda. Did we not see enough of this under Labour. To my mind this is happening all over again. I am hearing too much about Cleggs and Camerons ideals and not enough about the job in hand, Britains recovery.

All this is before we get to the assault on our democracy by the 55 per cent rule and fixed term Parliaments.

Power at any price is not something, I personally am prepared to pay, there may be others within the political parties involved who feel the same.

What MPs are being asked to do isn't really to compromise as such, but rather to abandon what they believe to be right and support instead what they believe to be wrong. This can't be a good thing. No MP should ever vote in a way they do not wish to, simply because their party leader says they should. It is this sort of situation which brings Parliament into disrepute.

I don't know what it is that left-wingers can't get about there being pain after wrecking an economy?

I've always believed that if they cared that much they would be more careful not to wreck the economy in the first place.

here is no reason why the coalition won`t work providing its economic management is competent and they don`t fall apart over their internal contradictions.

The Lib_Dems are traditionally supported by the public sector and small scale private capital,the conservatives are the party of the corporate rich,supported by ranks of small business who are mostly ancillary to the big players,and by sections of the middle and working class.

An area of conflict already emerging are the rises in capital gains tax from 18-40% for owners of second homes,buy to let and shares while large corporations will see a tax reduction of 12% and small business 5%.The Daily Mail will be pleased, surfing the anger of its C1 and C2 readership.While employers will no longer pay the NI levy,it is retained for employees.

This occuring against a backdrop of an emerging sovereign debt crisis in the Eurozone which will hit our exports at a time when deflation takes hold through deep and early spending cuts.

The conjunction of a second recession with class tensions over the distribution of the tax burden and the illiberalism of parliamentary changes will lead to a disintegration of the coalition and crisis elections.Remember there are no precedents.When Canada and Sweden performed surgery on their deficits,their main markets were intact and growing.

It`s good to have faith,I`m all for it.It`s even better to have some analytical tools to find your way round.After all,history is just economics and sociology.To all you true believers that`s all the law and all the prophets.

Typical hypocritical nonsense by self-serving politicians. The Conservative manifesto was not drafted with a coalition in mind. As soon as a coalition government became a reality, both sides knew that there would have to be compromise on both sides in terms of manifesto pledges - if they don't compromise then the coalition will fail; it's as simple as that.

Nick Clegg may get his way on the Bill on Human Rights, but he will have to give ground on a number of issues that are similarly fundamental to the Liberal Democrats. What is (surprisingly) refreshing is that you've got two leaders who recognise this fact right from the outset.

They are not 'old guard' politicians who would have rather commited hari kiri than 'get into bed with the ideological enemy', and therefore there is some hope for politics in this country....as long as the early shoots of growth aren't stamped on by short-sighted, narrow minded egotistical politicians (on both sides) who have only their own interests at heart.

Compromise is the only way that this coalition will succeed, and that will mean that some of the more 'extreme' policies that separate the parties in an ideological sense will have to be put to one side for the time being. There are much more significant stakes in the balance here - like rebuilding the economy and financial stability of this country for instance. That has to be the top priority for govennment for two or three years at least.

While on the subject of history, the last two occasions on which the Liberals (as they were) entered into coalition with the Conservatives produced a split in the Liberal Party. Those who remained in coalition (the Liberal Unionists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) and the National Liberals (1931-1968) ended up being fully absorbed into the Conservative Party. I'm expecting the same thing to happen again.

89. At 08:56am on 20 May 2010, David Jackson wrote:

What MPs are being asked to do isn't really to compromise as such, but rather to abandon what they believe to be right and support instead what they believe to be wrong. This can't be a good thing. No MP should ever vote in a way they do not wish to, simply because their party leader says they should. It is this sort of situation which brings Parliament into disrepute.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

But this is exactly what the Whip system delivers though, does it not? You always get the "maverick" conscientious ones who dont "sell out" their principles, but they dont tend to get very far if these principles run contrary to the direction being set by the PM and cabinet of the time - Tam Dalyell, Frank Field, Denis Skinner to name but three. I'm sure there were also others on the blue and yellow sides of the house but I cant think of them at the moment. But I digress. There have been a number of well argued cases against continuing to use the whip system because it effectively concentrates and focuses the power of the executive, rather than parliament. But thats a whole other story.

86. At 08:35am on 20 May 2010, sagamix wrote:

This 2015 general election campaign is getting rather fascinating, I must say. Don't think Cameron will be too concerned about criticism from the right of his party; part of the plan, I'd imagine. Makes things difficult for Labour if he keeps things super moderate. Force them left, and everyone knows you can't get in from there; not enough people like me around. By the same token, sacrifice some of the patio vote to UKIP, which is fine - not enough of them either. Plenty on this blog, but not in the public at large. The economy, as always, is key: the Coalition needs it to get better, but not too quickly - if it picks up this year, say, (or even next year) it'll be way too obvious that Gordon Brown's policies were the right ones. They need it to get worse - preferably a lot worse - and not to recover until 2014. Expect policies to bring this about, therefore - deep public spending cuts and swingeing tax rises. All about the electoral cycle, but it will be done under the guise of deficit reduction - so watch out for weasel words from George Osborne and the like; words such as "restoring the public finances". Very clever politics. And deeply deeply cynical.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And politics is never a cynical business, is it mate?

Like Gordon never counted the periods of growth under Ken Clarke prior to 1997 as part of his "longest period of sustained growth, thanks to the vision and policies and fiscal prudence of New Labour and especially me" self-aggrandising, did he? It doesnt say necessarily that Gordon's policies would have been the right ones, because you're not making the distinction between growth in the economy and the deficit. Not to mention ignoring possible "events" like sovereign debt crises.

I see where you're going with it, but cant help that you're being overly simplistic in order to just stick one to Osborne who you resent because he went to a better public school than you did. :-)

Deep public spending cuts and swinging tax rises were coming anyway mate, regardless of who won the election or rather, whoever formed the government of the day. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. Its just a simple case of do you do it yourself, or does the IMF come in and do it for you? Either way, we - sorry, you guys left back in the UK - are going to get shafted for it, good and proper.

With regard to the electoral positioning and posturing, (you'd better be sitting down here) your summation I think is probably pretty much on the button. Almost like a reverse of Blair's "stealing the tory clothes" strategy of the late 1990s. A true heir to Blair indeed, he says, tongue in cheek. The joker in the pack remains electoral reform and how that pans out and whether the likes of UKIP and the other small parties start to make an impact through any revised voting system where they have failed to register on FPTP. But fundamentally, yes, they will be fringe players compared to the usual duopoly (or is it triopoly now?)....

88. At 08:55am on 20 May 2010, Susan-Croft wrote:

Compromise can mean agreement reached by mutual concession by all the people involved. It can also mean in derogatory terms, you make a compromise on principles to achieve what you want.

As the first cannot be true of the Coalition because not all the people in the Conservative Party or the Lib/Dem Party were involved in the agreement made to form the Coalition, it must therefore be the second.
===================================
compromise can mean lots of other things including
▸ noun: a middle way between two extremes
▸ noun: an accommodation in which both sides make concessions
▸ verb: settle by concession
▸ verb: make a compromise; arrive at a compromise
▸ verb: expose or make liable to danger, suspicion, or disrepute

I'd pick the first one out of this list - doubtless, there will be some on this forum who will delight in picking the last of them. Indeed NR might well love the definition as applied to the coalition.

Probably why the Beeb will never use the word "Consensus"
▸ noun: agreement in the judgement or opinion reached by a group as a whole

But at the end of the day - does it really matter. It's becoming increasingly clear that the BBC can only "make news" with regard to this government if they accentuate any possible negative - after all "Bad news sells better than good news!"
By all means, hold the government to account - but do so with integrity
▸ noun: the quality of being honest and morally upright.

There is an interesting article by Andy Burnham in 'The Mirror' today in which he identifies three reasons why Labour lost:

" - we were doing more for those who didn’t want to work than those in work but struggling, particularly with no children.

- we were in denial about the effects of immigration on wages, housing and anti-social behaviour in places where life is hardest.

– pensioners who had done the right thing and saved found they were above the line for help"

This seems correct, though if I had posted these sentiments in my own name I'm sure the usual Labour suspects on this blog would have accused me of a right-wing rant.

Burnham also says:
"Labour won’t be heard again until we show that we understand this sense of unfairness."

For the Unthinking Left fairness means only an increasing transfer of resources from the richer to the poorer, directed by the State, with no other moral criteria involved. But of course for everyone else it is obvious that fairness is not met by a blind adherence to redistributive principles.

60#

"New politics sounds like a corrupt stitch up between Cons and Lib Dems - and thats because it is."

Jesus, more pontificating whinging from the left side.

And if Gordon and Mandy and Campbell HAD managed to pull off a progressive alliance with the LibDems, (which the Libs would have favoured more, ideologically, as theres less clear (orange?) water between them and Labour) would that have been any LESS of a corrupt stitch-up?

More inane whining. I dont know if all the barking and yapping from the left-lapdogs over the last 10 months was preferable to the whining or not... You lost. You had 13 years in which to create your utopia and you blew it and returned us back to the point where we started, if not worse.

Get over it for gods sake.

Universal suffrage for foxes!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.