There are tales all over the press about Lib Dem ministers having little confidence in ConDem policies.
It looks right to me for Douglas Alexander to say for Labour:
Government ministers are only saying in private what we have been saying in public — their changes to child benefit are ill thought-out and unfair ‚Ķ It's increasingly obvious just how little influence the Lib Dems have on this Tory-led government.
But there’s a little more to it than that. Sure there are concerns about student fees, and cuts in child and housing benefit. And yet that’s the detail. There’s no indication of concern about the direction of policy it seems, just its implementation.
And that’s what remains worrying about the ConDems — that they are committed to the wrong economic policy. What we need are measures to tackle unemployment. Then the government deficit would resolve itself. But there’s no hint we might get that.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Do you think it’s somewhat clever to continually describe the coalition as the “ConDem” government?
Do you not think that, as someone who is trying to make yourself look like a serious commentator, it is rather childish?
@Richard Price
It’s an issue I have considered – but I note others do use it
And it seems pretty accurate
And I don’t – despite the differences – see a ‘coalition’ as such – I see a unity in their policy that I note above
In which case a singular description seems appropriate
What else do you propose? I note Labour is proposing “Tory led government” which seemed darned cumbersome to me
But suggestions are welcome
@Richard Murphy
why not stick with “the government”.
Richard,
There are plenty of people wandering around scratching their heads asking how any of the ministers can be so stupid as to do what they are doing.
I don’t think they are being stupid. I think they may well be carefully following a train-wreck policy, destroying what we have for the phoenix of complete capitalism to emerge.
Could I be right?
Worryingly, New Labour are also neoliberal, so in effect we have no current political choice on direction. Only the speed.
One last thing
Private Eye has an article on Tax today (http://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?section_link=in_the_back&issue=1277)
Please tell me it’s wrong!
@Richard Price: How about the Axis? Would that be a suitable tag for the government?
The result of the general election was to return a minority Conservative government. More people voted for parties that wanted to reduce the deficit at a slower rate than voted for the Conservatives proposal to remove the deficit in one parliament. Had the will of the people been adhered to the minority Conservative government would not have been able to implement the policies they are now doing – assuming Labour and Liberal MPs had voted according to the manifesto policies they were elected on.
If Cameron and Clegg wanted to form a coalition, they should have called a fresh election and stood as “the Coalition” – as Ramsey McDonald did in 1931. As it stands, we have a government no-one voted for implementing economic policies that most people voted against. The Liberals have been taking most of the flack so far, acting as Cameron’s human shield. Perhaps it is time to drop all mention of the Liberals – who are patently ineffective, having failed to moderate extreme Conservative policies – and put Cameron in the frame where he belongs – so “The Cameron government”? or “David Cameron’s Conservatives”? as we were once invited to call them IIRC.
Pete
Pete
“Worryingly, New Labour are also neoliberal, so in effect we have no current political choice on direction. Only the speed.”
Don’t worry, I’m sure we’re at a point in history when we are going to move from something being inconceivable to being inevitable without ever going through the probable phase.
What concerns me is that while it is fine to bang on about tax avoidance, in order to have a long term stable (and happy!) society we also need to move from being passive consumers at the end of long supply chain to empowered individuals and small communities that are moving towards self-sufficiency. For as long as we are dependant upon global corporations and central government for the provision of our food, fuel and services we will never be happy. So I don’t think giving more money to central government will help the malaise: social equality is not financial but a result of everyone in society doing something that they feel and that society recognises is of value.
@Pete B
I quite like the Cameron government….
@mad foetus
And as you know – I have quite a lot of sympathy with that
@Pete B
Would calling a fresh election actually have achieved anything though? Would the electorate have accepted it as necessary at such grave economic times or would the failure to thrash out a deal have reduced politicians’ stock even further?
A further election might even have landed the Tories with a majority if people saw the Lib Dems as blockers unable to see past narrow party political lines.
If they did stand as the Coalition in a fresh election then they would almost certainly have been returned to power anyway(remember this would have been before the time the Liberals became unpopular).
But doesn’t this highlight the problems of electoral systems which make it more likely that a Coalition will emerge? At least FPTP usually allows one party to deliver on a manifesto.
Manifestos are worthless under PR/AV because as soon as the election is over they have to be torn up in order to do the horse-trading necessary to form a partnership between two parties who fought on different policies. And I don’t think it is realistic to call a further election to “ratify” the coalition – no country in the world does this as far as I know.
So people who complain that the government doesn’t have a mandate for this or that, whilst at the same time supporting PR/AV, should realise that this will happen all the time under Coalition governments.
@Richard Price: Hmmm, so when a country is in “crisis”, democracy should be suspended? Now where I have heard of that before? Ah yes, I remember now. Germany 1933.
@mad foetus
I’m speechless!
Richard – you are of course right in saying the outcome of another election would be unpredictable and another quick election could have been resented (and the worst case would be a repeat of the first election result). My real point was that Cameron was elected to lead a minority government and had he done so our country would not be following many of the present disastrous policies.
I entirely agree with your points about FPTP v AV. What we have seen is a coalition not leading to moderate, consensual policies, but to extreme ones. By agreeing to serve under David Cameron the Lib-Dems have enabled him to implement right-wing Conservative dogma as government policy in a way he would not have been able to had the general election result been respected and the Lib-Dems voted in parliament in line with their manifesto policies. The Lib-Dems behaviour is the strongest argument I know against PR and against involving minority parties in government in general.
“But doesn’t this highlight the problems of electoral systems which make it more likely that a Coalition will emerge?”
The notion that AV/STV are more likely to result in hung parliaments than FPTP has been largely debunked. The UK (under FPTP) has had 3 hung parliaments (out of 28) since 1929. Conversely Australia (under AV) had has 2 hung parliaments (out of 27).
In any case, hung parliaments are a natural consequence of a representative democracy. To artificially install a ‘strong’ government with a weak mandate through an disproportional electoral system rather flies in the face of democracy. In fact it has rather more in common with oligarchy than it does with genuine democracy.
“At least FPTP usually allows one party to deliver on a manifesto.”
Under a more proportional electoral system the Liberal Democrats, assuming they still opted to form a coalition with the Conservatives, would constitute approximately 39% of the government benches. As it stands they constitute approximately 15% of the government benches and as a result have only limited influence over government policy. Furthermore, under a more proportional electoral system a coalition between the Liberal Democrats, Labour and other centre-left parties would be a far more attractive prospect. It would have been able to form a workable government (i.e. a sizeable if still small majority) at the very least, which is not true under the current electoral system.
“If they did stand as the Coalition in a fresh election then they would almost certainly have been returned to power anyway(remember this would have been before the time the Liberals became unpopular).”
I think that this is far from certain, much of the Liberal Democrats current unpopularity has arisen from their apparent complicity in furthering the policies of a nominally centre-right government. Had the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives stood on a shared ticket as The Coalition at a second general election there would no doubt have been a significant swing from the Liberal Democrats to Labour (Mine would be one of those swing votes.
“Manifestos are worthless under PR/AV because as soon as the election is over they have to be torn up in order to do the horse-trading necessary to form a partnership between two parties who fought on different policies.”
This is more a consequence of our party political system and our decision to place near supreme power in the hands of a single individual (the Prime Minister), nominally the leader of the party with the most seats. This places the power squarely in the hands of the political parties, and in particular the front benches. An affront to democracy if you ask me. As it rather suggests that certain MPs, and by extension a select proportion of the electorate, have more influence than others by mere virtue of their party rank (which isn’t determined democratically).
If we abolished the party whips, reduced political parties to mere debating societies external to parliament and opted for a more individualist electoral system our elected officials would be free to represent their own views unencumbered by the dictates of a party. The electorate would then be able to hold their individual MPs to account by virtue of their voting record, rather than the record of the party. Under such a system we could also do away with the imperious post of Prime Minister and allow our legislatures to elect key Ministerial positions (Chancellor of the Exchequer, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Speaker of the House) who would then appoint their own cabinets. This would allow for a more flexible government portfolio (e.g. left-wing economics, centrist domestic and centrist foreign policy) determined democratically by the legislature itself (direct election by the electorate would be tricky, as these ministers would need to command a majority in parliament).
The problem with the ConDem government (a term I rather like, and will continue using: it is after all a contraction of the two parties’ names, and the fact that the word “Conservatives” contains the two 3-letter words “Con” and “VAT” tells us something very important about them) is not that it’s a coalition, but that one of the coalition ‘partners’ (in fact, the party ‘locked in the boot’ as Ed Miliband wittily put it) has done a complete U-turn on key manifesto policies they were elected on. No-one can really be surprised when the Tories screw the poor because every Tory government since 1979 has done that, so what did people really expect? But I would imagine that the number of people who voted for the Lib Dems in May expecting them to be spineless collaborators with the Tories could probably be counted on one hand. Yet for the most part, that’s what they have been.
If the coalition had actually ended up implementing a policy that was somewhere between the Tory and Lib Dem manifesto policies – well, that wouldn’t have been great, but it would be a damn sight better than what’s in fact happened. And the Lib Dems wouldn’t be running at 8% in the opinion polls.
I think the Lib Dems will end up rueing the day they ever went into Coalition with the Tories, rather than refusing and making the Tories try running a minority government. Oddly enough I think the true beneficiaries of the coalition – eventually – will be Labour, because the long split on the centre-left in British politics (which dates back to the formation of the SDP in 1981) has now resolved itself, by virtue of the Lib Dems (a) moving a long way right of centre, and (b) imminently imploding. Welcome back to 2-party politics just like the “good old days” of the 1950s and 60s… 😕
@Howard
You may well be right….
But give the Greens a look in!
They may have more seats than the Lib Dems next time round 🙂
“But give the Greens a look in!
They may have more seats than the Lib Dems next time round”
I hope more as a result of a *massive* increase in seats for the greens than a *massive* collapse in seats for the Liberal Democrats. It’d be nice to see a new colour on the BBC’s election night graphics. 😉
Depending on the outcome of Labours policy review the Greens may well get my vote. It would be a somewhat meaningless gesture from a resident of a Conservative safe seat, but a principled one none the less.
Oh yeah, I don’t mean to do the Greens down at all – I’ll be voting for them. But I think at this stage they will still be in the 5-10% range at most – maybe level pegging with the Lib Dems! – rather than up with the two main parties. If the Coalition spawns some kind of electoral pact then I would also imagine that UKIP will do somewhat better in Tory heartlands than last time, as the ‘official’ Tory stance will be seen as a sellout.
@Stephen
Stephen, I see both of your contributions to this blog have proved Godwin’s law. I fully epect the third to follow likewise.
Lee, I was of course entirely wrong to group PR with AV as AV is of course a non-proportional system. This in turn makes your comparison between the UK and Australia redundant. The real comparison should be made between UK and either Italy or Israel.
I still think if there was an election now and the Coalition stood as one, then they would win – even with the Lib Dems currently polling 10%.
@Richard Price
For those not familiar with Godwin’s law see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
The Right love it to suppress debate
It’s really convenient for them
But sometimes inappropriate too
You are forgiven for the indiscretion of grouping AV and STV, but not so much the indiscretion of comparing UK politics with that of Italy and/or Israel. 😉
As I attempted to illustrate above, had a more proportional electoral system been used during the 2010 general election the results (Con 36%, Lab 29.0% and LD 23.0%) would have resulted in a far stronger position for the Liberal Democrats and, as a direct result, a far more representative government. The next best thing to individualist politics. Under the current electoral system however, the Liberal Democrats hold only 57 seats to the Conservatives 306, giving them just enough influence to tame the more rabid Conservative policies (debatable) but not enough to put their own policies the agenda proper. Under a proportional system like STV the Liberal Democrats would have approximately 150 seats to the Conservatives 235 seats, they would have more than enough influence to put their policies on the agenda and such would be far more representative of the politics of the population at large. What’s more, for all the ‘strong government’ fans out there, a proportional system would have lead to a coalition government with a significantly greater majority.
If the electorate choose to elect a thoroughly neutered government it stands to reason they (as a conglomerate) do not want a strong government. Advocates of ‘strong government’ appear to think that all governments are owed an absolute majority. They are not!
The biggest consequence of having a weak/minority government is that it must debate its case and convince the opposition (or a significant number thereof) to come on side. Why else do we hold debates within the House of Commons if not to work out the kinks and present workable policies that are at least palatable to the majority? This is what democracy should look like, and if our politicians cannot muster the maturity and professionalism necessary for that task they are not deserving of their titles (Rt. Hon.) or their pay grades (2.5x the national average wage). Of course the party whips (and the inflate role of political parties as a whole) are a significant hindrance to this principal, which only goes to show how infantile our so called democracy really is.
We’ll never know for certain of course. I can only speak for myself (and much of my family) when I say that my vote for the Liberal Democrats was predicated upon what I perceived as Labours move to the centre-right and the Liberal Democrats being a centre-left party. I’m almost certain that much of their support, certainly at the grass-roots level, is similarly predicated.
@Lee
“I can only speak for myself (and much of my family) when I say that my vote for the Liberal Democrats was predicated upon what I perceived as Labours move to the centre-right and the Liberal Democrats being a centre-left party. I’m almost certain that much of their support, certainly at the grass-roots level, is similarly predicated.”
Bang on for a lot of people who I know voted Lib Dem – and deeply regret it
@Richard Price: I had no knowledge of Godwin’s law prior to following the link provided by the owner of this blog. I can only suppose that the reason for the raising of the matter of Nazi Germany sooner of later in internet discussions is because of the hugeness of events of that time. Anyone who has read about the Camps, the ideoology, and the causes, will have formed powerful conclusions, paralells to which may be seen in contemporary times. It is quite right that these events should inform our discussions, even today. “Lest We Forget” to transplant a phrase.
Just as an afterthought, I see no wrong in referring to the current government as “Con-Dems”. It expresses the writer’s stance and informs the reader accordingly. You can, of course, refer to the government as you choose but please let others adopt their terms.
I think for the most part is invoked far too often. Certainly, if an argument descends into a slagging match wherein one party accuses the other of being a Nazi and/or a fascist, it suggests that the first party has lost the argument (or at the very least is acting like a petulant child). That doesn’t however invalidate every reference to Nazi’s and fascists.
Stephen’s first post perhaps borders on invoking Godwin’s Godwin’s Law, although I would put it down to flippancy on Stephen’s part. His second comment was a perfectly valid piece of rhetoric given Richards implied defence of FPTP (a thoroughly unrepresentative electoral system) in the name of strong government (i.e. the reduced likelihood of hung parliaments).
In other words, Richard advocates sacrificing a central tenant of democracy (specifically proportionality) in the name of a perceived crisis (in this case hung parliaments and the need for coalition government, which is far from a crisis). Of course all this is inferred on my part (and perhaps Stephens), but that does appear to be Richards line of reasoning; that FPTP is better because it allows unpopular parties to form majority governments most of the time. In the face of that, a little emotive rhetoric is perfectly valid, so long as nobody is actually suggesting that Richard is actually a fascist!
This thread is beginning to read like a transcript from an Islington dinner party.
Irrespective of political perspective Parliament is populated (in the main) by corrupt, egotistical, deceitful, warmongering fraudsters; whose example results in Britain becoming an increasingly poverty stricken nation of illiterate, obese layabouts.
The divide between rich and poor deepens irrespective of whether the “caring” Socialists or the “nasty” Tories have been handed sway by a deluded and befuddled electorate. Social Justice has been abandoned for greed and self-interest with one rule for the rich and another for the poor.
The primary remedy is Tax Justice; an equity from which a whole new ideology will flow.
Support Richard Murphy.
In fact make him Prime Minister!
@Premier Shareholder Group
I agree with you re the tax justice agenda -it is representative of a whole new way of thinking on social justice
But prime Minister? Well, thanks for the offer – but I decided some time ago I am not temperamentally suited to the Palace of Westminster – with which I am pretty familiar – and the life of a minister, or I can assure you, I would have gone for it
And as many backbenchers say, I’m more use to them out of the place than in it
@Lee
No, it is not my intention to imply that Richard is a Fascist and I apologise if that is the way he has taken it. Yes, my first reference (The Axis) was intended to be flippant and was not intended to be accusatory.
@Stephen
Just as I thought. To invoke Godwin’s law for either of your posts is a little over the top if you ask me.
I worry that tax justice is virtually impossible so long as a wealthy political elite is at the helm. That’s why I hate the idea of political parties and party whips; they are fundamentally undemocratic institutions that concentrate influence into the hands of but a few politicians, many of whom will have been parachuted into safe seats. Reduce the influence of political parties, by abolishing the whips and prohibiting party candidates at elections, and a more individualist politics will emerge. Wherein political parties are reduced to mere debating societies and each politician is held to account on their own voting record.
It would also do a great deal of good to turn our growing CCTV culture back onto our politicians. Removing the option, currently available to our politicians, to hold private un-minuted meetings with shady media moguls (ref. Jeremy Hunt). We should be fully aware of the influence that all lobbying groups have on our government. Those that are too ashamed to bring their dealings into the cold light of day probably shouldn’t be allowed access to our politicians anyway!
I think this is largely a result of careerist politicians; in the short term they see Westminster as a gravy train, with incredible networking opportunities for the future. Just look at Blairs post political shenanigans. Incidentally, we haven’t seen any real socialists in this country for decades, the ones in power in recent years (placed their by the Labour party, in an effort to turn around their electoral fortunes) are the clearest example of champaign socialism I have ever come across. The fact is, a socialist who tacitly approves of free-market ideology (as New Labour did) is, almost by definition, not a socialist.
@Lee
” The fact is, a socialist who tacitly approves of free-market ideology (as New Labour did) is, almost by definition, not a socialist.”
Quite so
But the neolibs still claim not to be able to spot the difference
@Richard Murphy
What’s a little more disturbing, is that with the decades long more to the centre-right, socialism appears to have become a dirty word (as it is in the United States). I’ve lost count of the rabid condemnations of socialism I’ve heard from fellow countrymen, it was quite a shock too!
One thing I do hope comes out of Labours policy review, because it’s perhaps a little too optimistic to see a revival of socialism proper (*fingers crossed*), is that the Labour party develops closer ties with the Cooperative Party. In fact, given the existing relationship between Labour and the Cooperative Party, it is surprising how little the previous government did to advance the cause of cooperatives (weren’t New Labour responsible for many a building society demutualisation). Cooperatives would, after-all, be the natural middle ground (and a rather palatable one) between rabid free-market capitalism and all-out socialism (market socialism, I think they call it).
Anyway, that’s enough Islington dinner party banter from me for now! 😉