Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why in the end I voted for Norman Lamb
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Why in the end I voted for Norman Lamb
Although I’ve not been an active Lib Dem for more than a decade and a half I have still retained my membership and consider my politics as being strongly liberal with a small “l”.
0
Comments
Must admit to being genuinely surprised by that decision – or was it to jinx his chances?
Even Andrew Neil was aghast, and challenged him robustly. Utter cynical opportunism, not what the LDs need.
I thought the coalition did remarkably well. The LDs didn't deserve the hammering they took.
Lamb is not the man for that job.
The LDs took one for the nation to clear up the mess you guys created.
You haven't even accepted or apologised yet for the mess you left in the public finances. A mega gaping black hole is what is utterly catastophic and we still haven't filled it.
But still, as you say, a horrendous unforced error from the LibDems. If true - I'm not necessarily convinced it is, but it seems plausible - this is an interesting take on it:
http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2015/05/12/the-collapse-of-the-lib-dems/
* Lib Dems actually did a lot of good in the coalition, but created an impression that they were weak and being used by the Tories rather than working with them.
Another one: Liz Kendall has allowed herself to be painted as ''red Tory', even 'the enemy within' by going way too far to distance herself from EdM and the other three candidates with her positions and rhetoric.
The huge imbalance in the books had noting to do with the then government ?
Greece is a land of plenty and everyone is rich.
To some extent there's a similar issue with Labour. Yvette is probably the most heavyweight of the candidates and the easiest to see in Number 10, but the others are more natural TV communicators.
I would prefer either of them to any of the Labour candidates or any of the likely Tory contenders.
The "stars" assert that the BBC is an unparalleled creative force for good, that would be greatly diminished if it turned into a market-failure broadcaster, whilst failing to give any examples of why that would be so:
Lord Hall goes on to say that he refuses to allow the BBC to be dominated by commercial interests, or for the government to constrain its creative output, then cites Strictly, Bake Off and Top Gear as examples of what would be lost - all shows for which there is a very strong commercial market which could more than adequately supply such 'creativity':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/bbc/11740010/stars-open-letter-to-david-cameron-over-bbc-reforms.html
I imagine a fair few of those who voted for the winning candidates might say the same thing.
Meanwhile, a nice demolition job of Russia's 'Colin Powell' moment:
https://www.byline.com/column/13/article/171
If they were, then they would have held on better against the Tories in the South and lost against Labour in the North. Instead the Lib Dems to my reckoning lost 27 seats to the Conservatives and just 12 to Labour. Most Lib Dem losses were to the Tories and more than twice as many Lib Dems seats turned blue as red. The loss of tactical voting alone doesn't explain the loss of all these seats to the Tories.
The Tories disbanded the ultras, the Young Tories because they were utterly revolting. Skip a generation and this squalid bunch of thugs are now in power and as repellant as ever.
It is becoming less liberal on freedom of expression, tolerance of dissent from orthodoxy, personal privacy and state monitoring.
There are also some very dark forces at work in the world who entirely reject our way of life - there's no way of knowing how all that will eventually pan out.
Liberalism is needed.
Have met Lamb several times and whilst a reasonable thinker (but it is wide and far-ranging enough) and a steady-as it-goes man, am not sure if that is what is needed for 2020 and the interim.
Farron has plenty of fire, but does he know in which direction he is aiming and is he carrying too many chips?
A meld of the two candidates would have been best, but sadly that was not on offer.
Yes in general the world is getting more liberal or just pragmatic, excepting of course Isis/Isil which is liberal intolerant. Will be see a major intervention to try and shut them down or is their geographic spread just too great now?
Left of Centre voters no longer had an incentive to vote LD in these Tory-LD marginals.
Meanwhile right of centre voters were more able to vote for the new detoxified Tories and actively chose them as the stronger of the two options most likely to keep Labour out.
Cable being the no 1 guilty party.
Who was in charge of regulating the banks ?
Who chose to go on a public sector spending binge paid by borrowing and PFI ?
Who shifted taxation from income and VAT on to a housing binge and fictitious bank profits?
etc. ad nauseam....
So when opponents in the Labour Party call Liz Kendall a Tory what they mean is that she wants Labour to win. And she wants Labour to win in Britain as it actually is — with an electorate who want good schools, a patriotic government, well funded armed forces and welfare focused on those most in need. Labour has lost twice by ignoring the views of the voters.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/labour-has-lost-its-senses-if-it-thinks-liz-kendall-is-a-tory/
If I had a vote I would have gone for Lamb too. The Lib Dems had their first role in power for the best part of 100 years and Farron chose to opt out and not have to make the hard decisions. If the Lib Dems are going to opt out what is their point? A liberal voice is needed but so are liberal policies. Thank goodness for Osborne and his Liberal Democrat budget.
With 8 MPs and a recent history where the party is seen as Tory light that's brave.
Much better to take the proven 90's/00's approach to work together on the left and win MPs where you are strong.
In what was going to be a close election every other party made clear where they stood on the result (eg pro-austerity or against etc) the Lib Dems did not. Nobody can state what a vote for the Lib Dems was a vote for. They were prepared to work with anyone and not be against anyone.
In previous elections to Labour leaners a vote for the Lib Dems was a vote against the Tories, for Tory leaners a vote for the Lib Dems was a vote against Labour.
In this election to Labour leaners a vote for the Lib Dems could let in the Tories; for Tory leaners a vote for the Lib Dems could let in Labour [and the SNP].
A vote for the Lib Dems was barely one step above not turning up to vote at all. It was a vote to let other people decide the election result. If you're going to vote, you may as well decide the result yourself. Had the Lib Dems stood firm on one side of the road or other they could have kept half their seats, instead they stood in the middle of the road and got ran over by an on-coming truck as a result.
Labour should also be blamed for breathtakingly incompetent and complacent financial regulation which helped cause the "global financial crisis". That phrase is Labour spin. It was global in its effects, but the countries where financial regulation was laxest and which caused said crisis were remarkably few: off the top of my head, the US, the UK, Ireland and Spain. Maybe a few others. Canada, for instance, had its financial crisis in the early 1990s, and so was much better regulated than we or the Americans. So when the crisis hit, it experienced the indirect effects, but not the direct ones.
Labour's only defence is that the Conservatives would have done as badly on financial regulation, but counterfactual defences are always weak. The fact that Labour would have joined the ERM as well did nothing to protect the Conservatives from being blamed for 1992.
What number Lonsdale Road was pbCOM created in? House there are now going for almost 1.5mill.
What I would say is this: I think if Labour had it all to do again, they'd have made it more of a priority to achieve a budget surplus.
But, they didn't know there was a financial crisis coming. Apart from a few heterodox economists and maverick commentators, no-one did.
We were supposedly in a Great Moderation. Markets were efficient. Expectations were rational.
Of course, that wasn't actually the case. That's not Labour's fault.
It is the second gas price reduction in six months by the firm, and it says the two price cuts together will lead to an average total saving of £72.
The latest price cut takes effect from 27 August.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33534391
The existential crisis for the Lib Dems this year is that they didn't just lose their old seats, they also lost their second places. In the South West the Lib Dems went from either first or second to being third at best in general. Strategy of "building where you are strong" doesn't work if you're not strong.
Think Hattie might lead on the cost of living crisis?
Powerfully argued here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/mark-gettleson/tim-farron-gay-marriage_b_7799256.html
There were plenty of signs that Labour's economic regulation was not working - so why were they unprepared..
Prior to the UK's recession of 1990 the Tories were running a budget surplus of £4.2 in 1989 and a budget surplus of £3.9 in 1988. This meant that sensible pro-cyclical deficits could be ran (and were being shrank) after the 1990 recession.
Now just imagine what a different position we'd be in if Gordon Brown had been running a surplus in 2006 and 2007.
As for an "end to boom and bust" that was Brown's own bulls**t. If he fell for his own bulls**t he's still responsible for it. All economists know there is an economic cycle and would have expected a recession to happen eventually (even if the direct cause or date of it isn't know). To expect no future recessions is as moronic as expecting no future rain.
As for the Conservatives, they were fixing the roof. You can't switch a deficit to a surplus in just a year or two, it takes time to turn it round, as we are currently seeing. After the early 1980s recession, we reduced the deficit every year until we hit surplus by the late 80s. After the early 1990s recession, we reduced the deficit every year to set us on a path for surplus by the early 2000s. After the early 2000s slowdown, Labour didn't attempt anything of the sort.
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/3/20/1363802502484/Deficits-by-chancellor-001.jpg
Let's see they're regualting what was then the world's largest financial centre and hadn't a clue about the downsides ?
Incompetence - great defence.
According to the Ministry of Defence, the total cost of UK military operations in Iraq from 2003 to 2009 was £8.4bn. [1]
As of 2013, summations for the UK war in Afghanistan came to £37bn ($56.46 billion) .[2]
[1] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c3e50026-8e99-11de-87d0-00144feabdc0.html#axzz38WKKDSu8
[2] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/30/afghanistan-war-cost-britain-37bn-book
What does that lot have to do with massive expansion of the welfare state so that 90% of people got cashback from Gordo ?
The voters have judged Labour as having major competence issues in 2010 and 2015. Now who should be the new Leader best able to move on from that?
A male denier? A female denier? A male who has some regrets? A female that says that labour spent too much? Personally I hope you pick a denier.
On topic, whoever the LDs choose has a big job to win back seats in 2020. They also did the right thing with a shorter campaign, we have another two months of the LAB campaign to go as they argue with each other rather than opposing the government - not that the government are complaining of course, they are enjoying the baiting of the SNP far too much!
Kendall is the only one who would stall a LD recovery, there is already a degree of buyers remorse in 2015 new Con voters.
All the same, a lay of Farron at 1.04 looks worth a speculative punt, just in case there's a surprise.
Farron and Lamb are very different characters with very different styles, I’ve no doubt both are more than capable of leading the LDs and holding their party together. – However, the trouble I see for the LDs between now and 2020, is the same old problem of being ignored by national media while the two main parties battle it out in Westminster. - Admittedly it is not their only problem, but if raising issues and being heard counts for anything, then I think Farron is the stronger candidate of the two.
Something close to my heart and were I a LibDem member I too would have voted for him.
If that's the case, why is Farron, who could not get himself to vote in favour of gay marriage on the ballot paper?
Some interesting pieces within the bulletin:
a) 12,000 Strike Days lost in month - 10,000 were public sector, 2,000 private sector. Five times as much industrial action and with only a fifth as many workers;
b) Slight decline in job vacancies driven by small employers (1-9 employees);
c) Most of the rise in unemployment is public sector lay-offs;
d) As the number of lone parent claimants falls, the number of females too unwell to work rises;
e) Employment Rates.
UK Overall 73.3%
84.1% EU8 - Poland, Latvia, Lithuania etc
79.0% EU27
76.7% EU2 - Romania and Bulgaria
74.0% UK Born
70.6% India
66.8% African (excl South Africa)
53.0% Pakistani/Bangladeshi
Q: Which party since 1970 first linked the work of the UK Govt with the causes of the UK economic cycle?
A: Labour, when Gordon said they had abolished boom and bust.
Q: Which party since 1970 first stated that the work of the UK Govt did effect the the World economic cycle?
Brown did when he boasted that his work was "saving the world".
I think Osborne has taken a risk. His colours are nailed firmly to the sound money mast. What will be their pitch in 2020 if we have had another recession and the roof is still not fixed?
Is this a good tactic by Ms Sturgeon to annoy her way to victory for SIndy or a step too far that will alienate SNP voters who don't like an issue like this to be a political football?
" One fascinating facet of the Shadow Cabinet split is that Harman apparently has the support of Chris Leslie (tipped to be Shadow Chancellor if Cooper wins) and Rachel Reeves (tipped to be Shadow Chancellor if Burnham wins), despite their favoured candidates showing opposition. The brouhaha may not be solved simply by the election of a new leader.
There are two big Labour speeches this morning. Andy Burnham is delivering a speech on a “New Economy” at Microsoft in Reading, where he will lay out five principles that will guide his management of the economy. He will also argue that while investment in public services did not cause the 2008 crash, and the deficit was not significant by historical standards, Labour should have done more to control spending.
Tristram Hunt, a high-profile Liz Kendall supporter, will make a speech on Labour’s approach to England, ahead of a Commons debate on EVEL later today. In it, he gives his backing to the formation of an English Labour Party - something which Jon Cruddas has let slip is happening, even if it does not have official sign off from Labour HQ."