I like Davey, and voted for him over Swinson last year. I may well do so again.
I don't know enough of Daisy, but will have a look. I do like Layla, and she comes over fresh and bright on all media, but not convinced on leadership skills. She is a bit erratic.
I thought Davey was by far the better choice last time out, and I said so. With the benefit of hindsight, I was right.
There is no dignity in kicking a dead corpse, but Swinson’s flaws were legion, and glaringly obvious to uninvolved observers. We need not list them now.
I have not yet come to any conclusion for this new contest. All three of them look miles better than the last few leaders.
Moran comes over very well on radio, but seeing her for the first time is a bit of a shock. This may sound superficial and misogynistic, but it is a serious point. When was the last time a truly odd-looking individual led a political party? (Margaret Beckett doesn’t really count.)
Isn’t there a saying that politics is show business for ugly people? I’m not sure any party leader in my lifetime, with the exceptions of Blair and Cameron, have been particular handsome.
Please note that I did not say that Moran was ugly. Odd-looking is not the same thing.
For example, Margaret Thatcher was most definitely odd-looking, but she was definitely not ugly. In fact, it seems to be universally accepted that the lady had a certain je ne sais quoi.
It could even be argued that odd-looking leaders do unusually well: Churchill, Thatcher, Charlie Kennedy, Ian Paisley snr, Alex Salmond.
She is actually very attractive; her Palestinian heritage gives her an unusual look. Her dress sense however is hideous and I would hope the party will do what it didn’t with Swinson (but Labour did with Corbyn) and force her to take some appropriate advice.
Up close she has the most beautiful translucent skin.
To each their own, but the bizarre rictus grin in the photo in the header does absolutely nothing for me.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
I doubt Mrs May would agree much with your last paragraphs!
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
It's wonderful, isn't it?
Even after everything that's happened, and is still happening in countries like Brazil, we have bright sparks popping up and saying "on anecdotal (i.e. scientifically worthless) evidence I think it's low (undefined) therefore we should be allowed to do X (reasoning unexplained)".
Or more likely you're an irrational lockdown fascist who ignores the evidence coming out of other countries who have done exactly this and not seen a rise in new cases. Schools, outdoor spaces and businesses and shops. All of them should be open now. You can continue to be scared of your own shadow but it doesn't change the evidence that there isn't a huge amount of outdoor transmission and that there isn't a huge amount of transmission in supermarkets or that the chances of child to adult transmission is extremely low.
These are all new things we didn't previously know and our policy needs to be updated to reflect them.
Yes. The posts of Chris and Sandy and other PB Lockdownists are utterly tiresome, and nauseating. They seem to be driven more by a weird brand of moralising rather than evidence. Sandy pops up on here nightly to dismiss various groups of people as 'dickheads' for leaving their house, then disappears. It really is an odd credo. Clearly the way forward is to explore policies that reconcile safety with economic and social needs. Yet these extremists hate the very mention of such ideas – see the ugly attacks on Cyclefree last night.
Seconded.
It's obviously the case that people going out with the awareness that they need to be careful around other people is a totally different situation to the one in which we saw cases rise exponentially.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
It's wonderful, isn't it?
Even after everything that's happened, and is still happening in countries like Brazil, we have bright sparks popping up and saying "on anecdotal (i.e. scientifically worthless) evidence I think it's low (undefined) therefore we should be allowed to do X (reasoning unexplained)".
Or more likely you're an irrational lockdown fascist who ignores the evidence coming out of other countries who have done exactly this and not seen a rise in new cases. Schools, outdoor spaces and businesses and shops. All of them should be open now. You can continue to be scared of your own shadow but it doesn't change the evidence that there isn't a huge amount of outdoor transmission and that there isn't a huge amount of transmission in supermarkets or that the chances of child to adult transmission is extremely low.
These are all new things we didn't previously know and our policy needs to be updated to reflect them.
Yes. The posts of Chris and Sandy and other PB Lockdownists are utterly tiresome, and nauseating. They seem to be driven more by a weird brand of moralising rather than evidence. Sandy pops up on here nightly to dismiss various groups of people as 'dickheads' for leaving their house, then disappears. It really is an odd credo. Clearly the way forward is to explore policies that reconcile safety with economic and social needs. Yet these extremists hate the very mention of such ideas – see the ugly attacks on Cyclefree last night.
Seconded.
It's obviously the case that people going out with the awareness that they need to be careful around other people is a totally different situation to the one in which we saw cases rise exponentially.
What all the governments (that are actively trying to do something vaguely sensible) around the world are doing, is to try and work out a balance -
What are the *least* set of restrictions (combined with testing/tracing) that will reduce the effective R to the point that the disease dies out/falls to a very low level?
Most of government (and, indeed, management more generally) boils down eventually to solving optimisation problems.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising.
While we're on the subject, the one I've never heard of walked into a bar and the barman says "why the long face...?"
Sorry...
I presume they were unchallenged because for one various people have commented on odd looking male politicians, and that there may be an unfairness in female politicians getting so judged more than male ones was also noted, and part of it was about dress which does apply to men, and it was all rather detached in tone for the most part.
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
Men are always judging women on their appearance. It is so commonplace that I think most of us simply put up with it (most of the time).
I find find it rather amazing TBH, given how many men seem to have jeans halfway down their a*se or shirts that are not even close to fitting.
The unfairness itself is certainly well known but should be raised more nonetheless.
I think the preliminary question is what are the Lib Dems for? In the last Parliament they were for overturning the referendum result either outright or by a second referendum. Despite acquiring a reasonable number of fellow travellers from across the political spectrum this proved to be very much a minority interest preventing the breakthrough required by FPTP and resulted in the loss of their newly acquired MPs.
We now have a situation where the UK has left the EU, albeit we remain in a transition phase. By the next election we will certainly have left completely even if the transition is extended. We also have a massive issue of the virus and its economic sequelae. Surely it is the latter that the Lib Dems must concentrate on?
This is personal bias but I always had a real weakness for the Orange Bookers, small state, economically conservative with a small "c", keen to promote equality within those limitations and socially liberal. Cameron and Osborne were both Orange Bookers at heart which is why the quad in the Coalition worked so well. Davey to me epitomises this position and if I had a vote in this I would vote for him in a heart beat. The Conservatives seem, in the current crisis, to have forgotten economic conservatism and it is a voice that needs to be heard. At least I think so, but I fully accept that this is very much a minority position.
Even before the pandemic, the Conservative government had pledged huge infrastructure investment. The view among many Tory PBers and even MPs that the government would have continued George Osborne's policies but for Covid-19 is simply wrong. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better David Cameron or Theresa May. This leaves Ed Davey's LibDems economically to the right of the Conservatives, which as I suggested earlier will by 2024 look inspired or will wipe out the few remaining LD MPs.
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising.
While we're on the subject, the one I've never heard of walked into a bar and the barman says "why the long face...?"
Sorry...
I presume they were unchallenged because for one various people have commented on odd looking male politicians, and that there may be an unfairness in female politicians getting so judged more than male ones was also noted, and part of it was about dress which does apply to men, and it was all rather detached in tone for the most part.
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
Men are always judging women on their appearance. It is so commonplace that I think most of us simply put up with it (most of the time).
I find find it rather amazing TBH, given how many men seem to have jeans halfway down their a*se or shirts that are not even close to fitting.
Quite.
Still of the three Daisy looks lovely and stylish, Ed Daley is presentable and well dressed and Layla needs to find a suit that fits properly and that doesn’t make her look as as if she picked it off the rails at an Oxfam shop with her eyes shut.
Went off Layla after hearing her during the last GE campaign. I like Ed Davey. Know nothing about Daisy Cooper. A party that spoke up for true liberal values would be nice. Not sure if the LibDems are that party anymore, though.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
I still think the LDs and Clegg get an unfairly hard time for their record in the coalition. It seems to be seen through the lens of them being equal partners who could/should have demanded a far greater price for their support. In reality, they had a seventh of the coalition's fire power, yet got some key policies on the slate with whipped support from the Tories (don't underestimate how much - eg - a referendum on voting reform cost Cameron with his own side). And from what's come since, especially on Europe, they clearly had a strong restraining influence on the further reaches of the Tory heartlands. While I take the point about potentially keeping Theresa May somewhere safe, Clegg as DPM and Danny Alexander as Chief Sec clearly wielded a lot of soft power alongside Cameron and Osborne.
Politics sure can be an unfair business. Near wipeout was a harsh judgement from the public.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
I doubt Mrs May would agree much with your last paragraphs!
I tend to not be in particular agreement with Mrs May on a number of things
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
It's wonderful, isn't it?
Even after everything that's happened, and is still happening in countries like Brazil, we have bright sparks popping up and saying "on anecdotal (i.e. scientifically worthless) evidence I think it's low (undefined) therefore we should be allowed to do X (reasoning unexplained)".
Or more likely you're an irrational lockdown fascist who ignores the evidence coming out of other countries who have done exactly this and not seen a rise in new cases. Schools, outdoor spaces and businesses and shops. All of them should be open now. You can continue to be scared of your own shadow but it doesn't change the evidence that there isn't a huge amount of outdoor transmission and that there isn't a huge amount of transmission in supermarkets or that the chances of child to adult transmission is extremely low.
These are all new things we didn't previously know and our policy needs to be updated to reflect them.
Yes. The posts of Chris and Sandy and other PB Lockdownists are utterly tiresome, and nauseating. They seem to be driven more by a weird brand of moralising rather than evidence. Sandy pops up on here nightly to dismiss various groups of people as 'dickheads' for leaving their house, then disappears. It really is an odd credo. Clearly the way forward is to explore policies that reconcile safety with economic and social needs. Yet these extremists hate the very mention of such ideas – see the ugly attacks on Cyclefree last night.
Seconded.
It's obviously the case that people going out with the awareness that they need to be careful around other people is a totally different situation to the one in which we saw cases rise exponentially.
Anecdotally on virus stuff, I think London is now down to a very low level. We should be allowed to open up the shops and outdoor businesses fully.
Complete and dangerous nonsense.
The UK went from a handful of cases to an epidemic killing 35k+ people in reasonably short order.
There should be an easing but gradual, managed, backed by reasonably effective track and trace, and with a close eye at all stages on infection rates so we can go into reverse if required.
It's wonderful, isn't it?
Even after everything that's happened, and is still happening in countries like Brazil, we have bright sparks popping up and saying "on anecdotal (i.e. scientifically worthless) evidence I think it's low (undefined) therefore we should be allowed to do X (reasoning unexplained)".
Or more likely you're an irrational lockdown fascist who ignores the evidence coming out of other countries who have done exactly this and not seen a rise in new cases. Schools, outdoor spaces and businesses and shops. All of them should be open now. You can continue to be scared of your own shadow but it doesn't change the evidence that there isn't a huge amount of outdoor transmission and that there isn't a huge amount of transmission in supermarkets or that the chances of child to adult transmission is extremely low.
These are all new things we didn't previously know and our policy needs to be updated to reflect them.
Yes. The posts of Chris and Sandy and other PB Lockdownists are utterly tiresome, and nauseating. They seem to be driven more by a weird brand of moralising rather than evidence. Sandy pops up on here nightly to dismiss various groups of people as 'dickheads' for leaving their house, then disappears. It really is an odd credo. Clearly the way forward is to explore policies that reconcile safety with economic and social needs. Yet these extremists hate the very mention of such ideas – see the ugly attacks on Cyclefree last night.
Seconded.
It's obviously the case that people going out with the awareness that they need to be careful around other people is a totally different situation to the one in which we saw cases rise exponentially.
What all the governments (that are actively trying to do something vaguely sensible) around the world are doing, is to try and work out a balance -
What are the *least* set of restrictions (combined with testing/tracing) that will reduce the effective R to the point that the disease dies out/falls to a very low level?
Most of government (and, indeed, management more generally) boils down eventually to solving optimisation problems.
Which is the "boring" bit of politics, according to some. Ideological battles are more fun.
There was some wittering, from politicians, about making public services "like John Lewis".
As in responsive to individuals rather than steam-rollering anything that isn't quite average. Then they discovered this would require distributed management and decision making. Plus expecting people to use judgement.
And so it softly and suddenly vanished away....
Because no-one in the political class wants *Judges* to exercise judgement, let alone mere peons.
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
Its actually quite plausible.
Whenever people have tried to draw up lists of how they think people voted PB is remarkably similar to the general public across parties and Leave/Remain.
I think the only reason some leftwing posters tend to feel like they're not represented properly is they fail to recognise each other as left wing.
I think that is an interesting observation. There are definitely quite a few 'Liberals' as opposed to 'Social Democrats' on this site and as a demographic that doesn't surprise me that they are drawn to the site. I suspect that Tories will consider them 'leftwing' whereas they may not consider themselves so. I have been accused for being a leftie on several occasions by Tories whom I consider to be left of me when it comes to both business and freedoms.
So I think your observation is correct, although I dispute lots of us are actually leftwing (Catch 22). I'm definitely not.
Well indeed, there's definitely a strong liberal contingent here.
The funny thing with left v liberal is that the left tends to view liberals as "not left" when it suits them (eg complaining the site is biased) but then on election day deems it as read that the liberals must want a Labour government.
I was more thinking there's a distinction between what you might term the Blair-style centre-left Labour (eg SouthamObserver etc) and the Corbyn-style far-left (eg BigJohnOwls etc)
You are basically a right wing Liberal not a Conservative for example, apart from Brexit you could easily be an Orange Book LD
Does HYUFD have a point Philip? I'm scratching my head over that one. I feel I disagree with you too much for it to be true but......
Yes. I am socially liberal, economically dry. When PoliticalCompass first came out I was placed in the extreme bottom-right hand side corner (very right wing on economics, very liberal on social matters).
I view Nick Clegg as closer to my beliefs than Theresa May.
I don't like the name of my party. I am not a conservative with a small c. In Australia the name of the right wing party, the sister party to the UK's Conservatives, is the Liberal Party. That suits me better.
The conservative party in Australia is the National Party, it is just in coalition with the Liberal Party
I never said the conservative party in Australia, I said the Conservative Party in Australia.
The conservative party in Australia is the National Party. I wouldn't support them, but would give them my second preference under their AV voting system because of the coalition. The Conservative Party in Australia is the Liberal Party.
And as I said I would support the Liberal Party.
The largest centre right party you mean, not the conservative party.
In New Zealand the Nationals are the main centre right party, in Canada the Conservative Party of Canada is.
Australia like Japan and the Netherlands just has a liberal party as the main centre right party
No, I know Australian politics much better than you do. I grew up Down Under.
The sister party to the Conservative Party in Australia is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are both founding members of the International Democrat Union (IDU) and the Liberal Party is even associated with the ECR European Parliament grouping that David Cameron helped set up too.
One thing Australian newspapers are very good at it using capital letters correctly when referring to conservative or Conservative or liberal or Liberal etc
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
I doubt Mrs May would agree much with your last paragraphs!
I tend to not be in particular agreement with Mrs May on a number of things
Indeed but there are plenty of examples of the right not compromising (such as the last parliament) and of the left compromising. Indeed compromising was central to Blairism and that was dominant in the Labour party for 15 years plus. I think you may be reading into this what you would like to believe.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Exactly.
I am a Conservative and Unionist, which is why I didn't vote for Brexit and can't vote for BoZo and chums.
I am a Conservative but I am neither a conservative nor a unionist. Never have been but have been a Conservative supporter almost my entire political life and a member most of my adult life.
Can Meyer be added to the list of folk whose reputation has been given a good doing by Brexit?
What with Craig Murray I'm beginning to wander about recruitment criteria for the UK diplomatic service.
It was an old trope in the diplomatic that some would return from abroad.. a bit odd. Touch of the sun or something. Such people should be carefully wrapped in cotton wool and placed somewhere safe. Like Pitcairn.
In Opposition, Labour often make conciliatory overtures. In the run-up to 1997 we saw this. When they realised they needed no help after all, they dropped the Lib Dems instantly (well, they gave Roy Jenkins a Commission to investigate voting reform which they promptly gave a stiff ignoring to).
It's possible that if they do need support after 2024, they might follow up. It would be unusual, but possible. The posts of Labour supporters on here show how they'd feel about that prospect, though (eg the one I initially replied to)
It's pretty clear that we'll need LibDem confidence and supply at least, and I think Starmer is very much in the "whatever works" camp, as are most of the MPs and membership. The devil is in the detail as always. Personally I think PR in local government as an explicit trial for PR nationally would be a good compromise. Absolutely nobody but the most hardline partisans thinks that authorities with 100% of councillors from one party are a good idea.
Historically, I'm pretty sure that Tony Blair wanted a coalition with Paddy Ashdown in 1997, but the size of Labour's majority made it difficult to justify to members (in the same way that even the most centrist Tories are not currently urging Boris to invite the LibDems to join the Government). Privately he'd probably have been content with a smaller majority and a coalition.
I remember seeing Robin Cook walking down a train carriage once.
John Smith in the bar car of the Edinburgh Sleeper, holding court to adoring acolytes, "thirsty".
Charles Clarke on the opposite escalator at Victoria, red in the face
Michael Heseltine behind me in the queue for a payphone at King Cross - it wasn't working.
Betty Boothroyd on the number 82 bus.
Mrs T in the Holiday Inn Cramlington (power had been cut the day before as Special Branch searched for bombs)
The Queen at Newcastle Races.
My chance encounters of the third kind:
Mrs Thatcher sitting almost immediately in front of me in the stalls at Glyndebourne, some time in the 90s I think. Luckily she was one seat to the right of me, otherwise my view would have been obstructed by her hair.
Also at Glyndebourne, walking in the garden just before the performance, that man of the people, Jim Callaghan.
And a third Glyndebourne encounter, Danny Alexander at the height of the coalition years. He was wearing a kilt and looked rather dashing. He seemed to be looking at his phone most of the time and left at the interval. Ah, the cares of office!
Also during the coalition, a couple of weeks after parliament started sitting again in 2010, Vince Cable passed me on Westminster Bridge. He looked thoroughly confused.
Oh, and George Osborne and his family in the Paul Hamlyn bar at Covent Garden. His pre-ordered interval sandwiches and drinks were laid out immediately next to ours. He was talking about his next trip to Bayreuth. (No champagne, though - just white wine. We were enjoying the superb R de Ruinart).
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
I think Swinson's loss was very much the Lib Dems loss as well. She made some bad mistakes. She won't have the opportunity to learn from those mistakes, which I think she would have done. The Lib Dems big problem now is the tiny MP gene pool. They are all pavement politicians (literally going on about pavements), which helps them win seats in difficult circumstances. It doesn't give them any insight into the broader picture. The Lib Dems are also unfortunate that none of the Change UK candidates won their seats. It would have given them some genetic diversity.
She was utter crap
She was like a woke Ruth Davidson. Completely the wrong person at the wrong time.
That's interesting - how do you mean, please?
The opportunity for the Lib Dems lay in peeling the Remain vote in the south of England away from the Tories. A unionist Scot with a penchant for identity politics who was more interested in fighting the SNP was the worst possible person to do that.
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising.
While we're on the subject, the one I've never heard of walked into a bar and the barman says "why the long face...?"
Sorry...
I presume they were unchallenged because for one various people have commented on odd looking male politicians, and that there may be an unfairness in female politicians getting so judged more than male ones was also noted, and part of it was about dress which does apply to men, and it was all rather detached in tone for the most part.
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
Men are always judging women on their appearance. It is so commonplace that I think most of us simply put up with it (most of the time).
I find find it rather amazing TBH, given how many men seem to have jeans halfway down their a*se or shirts that are not even close to fitting.
Quite.
Still of the three Daisy looks lovely and stylish, Ed Daley is presentable and well dressed and Layla needs to find a suit that fits properly and that doesn’t make her look as as if she picked it off the rails at an Oxfam shop with her eyes shut.
Went off Layla after hearing her during the last GE campaign. I like Ed Davey. Know nothing about Daisy Cooper. A party that spoke up for true liberal values would be nice. Not sure if the LibDems are that party anymore, though.
Ms Moran looks like she needs to buy an iron and a maybe someone should buy her a voucher for ColourMeBeautiful
I know nothing about the others except Davey has been around for quite a while and Ms Cooper has not been around long enough to be leading a party.
I voted LD last time because of the loathing I had for the other two parties, not because I liked them. They were merely the least objectionable
Not that long ago, the Lib Dems were a party I would have considered voting for. I barely know what they are about these days and the 'barely' bit is not something I could vote for.
Moran - awful, utterly voter repellent. Davey - safe option, at least maintain current status or increase slightly. Cooper - negative-she isn't the one off This County. Positive-she isn't Moran or a complete fruit cake.
With the amount of time until the next GE, I'd go for Cooper. She can always be replaced, by Davey again probably.
The loss of Norman Lamb has deprived them of the sensible wing of the party. The result in North Norfolk is an unpleasant pointer for the future for the Lib Dems.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
I doubt Mrs May would agree much with your last paragraphs!
I tend to not be in particular agreement with Mrs May on a number of things
Indeed but there are plenty of examples of the right not compromising (such as the last parliament) and of the left compromising. Indeed compromising was central to Blairism and that was dominant in the Labour party for 15 years plus. I think you may be reading into this what you would like to believe.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
That isn't new. As I said the Conservative Party is not a conservative party exclusively and never has been.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
I think the preliminary question is what are the Lib Dems for? In the last Parliament they were for overturning the referendum result either outright or by a second referendum. Despite acquiring a reasonable number of fellow travellers from across the political spectrum this proved to be very much a minority interest preventing the breakthrough required by FPTP and resulted in the loss of their newly acquired MPs.
We now have a situation where the UK has left the EU, albeit we remain in a transition phase. By the next election we will certainly have left completely even if the transition is extended. We also have a massive issue of the virus and its economic sequelae. Surely it is the latter that the Lib Dems must concentrate on?
This is personal bias but I always had a real weakness for the Orange Bookers, small state, economically conservative with a small "c", keen to promote equality within those limitations and socially liberal. Cameron and Osborne were both Orange Bookers at heart which is why the quad in the Coalition worked so well. Davey to me epitomises this position and if I had a vote in this I would vote for him in a heart beat. The Conservatives seem, in the current crisis, to have forgotten economic conservatism and it is a voice that needs to be heard. At least I think so, but I fully accept that this is very much a minority position.
Even before the pandemic, the Conservative government had pledged huge infrastructure investment. The view among many Tory PBers and even MPs that the government would have continued George Osborne's policies but for Covid-19 is simply wrong. Boris won by being a better Jeremy Corbyn, not a better David Cameron or Theresa May. This leaves Ed Davey's LibDems economically to the right of the Conservatives, which as I suggested earlier will by 2024 look inspired or will wipe out the few remaining LD MPs.
Before the pandemic some additional capital spending was needed. Indeed it was needed during the interminably dull Chancellorship of Philip Hammond but neglected. What was important is that spending involved choices within an overall framework. In short we needed to reduce current spending and increase capital spending. Now, all bets are off. The taps are on full flow trying to keep the economy afloat (mixed metaphors, apologies). In the very short term this is undoubtedly correct: the economy has taken the most awful battering and needs support. But in the medium term tough choices are going to need to be made. To me Davey comes across as one of the few remaining politicians that gets that.
Well, that's ridiculous. They clearly also contribute quite a lot of the VAT intake, and (indirectly) corporation tax, via the shares they hold. It might not quite be 30% of total tax, but whoever said it was?
Income tax was set up to support the Napoleonic Wars, I wonder if @HYUFD thinks that means its not a tax too?
Income tax reasons of the first few taxes, hence it is called a tax not an insurance like National Insurance
A Jaffa cake is a biscuit.
And the World Series is not open to teams from the whole planet.
A Jaffa cake is not a biscuit according to the court ruling of 1991.
Where is it found in supermarkets? Eh? Not the cake section. Where do you find the Penguin bars? At the pet shop?
It's a biscuit.
Shhhh. If it were classed as a biscuit it would cost 20% more.
Any reason why VAT isn't levied on cake?
Biscuits and cakes are "necessities" and are therefore zero rated.
However, chocolate covered biscuits are deemed to be luxury items and are therefore VATable. Chocolate covered cake is not a luxury item.
Thus the Jaffa Cake case...
Your honour
VAT is levied at 0% on cake.
Some of the world's most expensive lawyers devote their lives to questions about the difference between a cake and biscuit, and whether the colour of Cadbury's Dairy Milk wrappers or the configuration of a Kit Kat can be trademarked.
BTW everyone knows that a cake when left in the tin for too long dries up, while a biscuit left too long gets damp. Thus a Jaffa cake is a cake.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
That isn't new. As I said the Conservative Party is not a conservative party exclusively and never has been.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
Income tax was set up to support the Napoleonic Wars, I wonder if @HYUFD thinks that means its not a tax too?
Income tax reasons of the first few taxes, hence it is called a tax not an insurance like National Insurance
A Jaffa cake is a biscuit.
And the World Series is not open to teams from the whole planet.
A Jaffa cake is not a biscuit according to the court ruling of 1991.
Where is it found in supermarkets? Eh? Not the cake section. Where do you find the Penguin bars? At the pet shop?
It's a biscuit.
Shhhh. If it were classed as a biscuit it would cost 20% more.
Any reason why VAT isn't levied on cake?
Biscuits and cakes are "necessities" and are therefore zero rated.
However, chocolate covered biscuits are deemed to be luxury items and are therefore VATable. Chocolate covered cake is not a luxury item.
Thus the Jaffa Cake case...
Your honour
VAT is levied at 0% on cake.
Some of the world's most expensive lawyers devote their lives to questions about the difference between a cake and biscuit, and whether the colour of Cadbury's Dairy Milk wrappers or the configuration of a Kit Kat can be trademarked.
BTW everyone knows that a cake when left in the tin for too long dries up, while a biscuit left too long gets damp. Thus a Jaffa cake is a cake.
Trust me, VAT law gets a lot weirder than that...
My personal favourite: "Whether “Beyblade”, was correctly classified as “other toys” under Heading 9503 of the Combined Nomenclature (“CN”) and not, as Hasbro contended should be the case, as “articles for… table or parlour games” under Heading 9504." "
As an ex-LD (and Lib) I'm very saddened by what a campaigning party has become. I fear that Clegg will be regarded in history as a someone who did more damage to the Lib/LD brand than Lloyd-George did; at least the latter started out well. The more that come out out about the long term-effect of the Coalition's social policies, the worse it seems. Initially I supported the Coalition if only because a) the country needed a Government, b) the arithmetic meant a Conservative or Conservative-led one was the only option and c) I hoped the LDs would have some ameliorating effect on what seemed a Rightward drift by the Conservative back-benchers. However, IMHO Clegg made two disastrous mistakes. He didn't insist on one of the Great Offices, which almost certainly meant Theresa May was promoted above her ability, instead taking the non-job of Deputy PM and secondly he kept the Coalition going right up until the last minute. Three years would have been plenty, after which the LD's could have reverted to C&S and could have stressed their differences.
Now the Party needs a Grimond or an Ashdown, and, TBH, I don't see one anywhere,
Good post. Interesting that CHB was lamenting a couple days ago that on PB.com conservatism is over-represented. I don`t see that at all. A lot of posters seem to be liberals though.
Yes, the last survey of how PBers voted after the 2015 general election showed more PBers voted LD than the general population but fewer PBers voted UKIP.
PBers voted Tory and Labour in about the same percentage as the general public
On what voodoo poll do you base that final statement? With all due respect anecdotally that sounds like nonsense.
Its actually quite plausible.
Whenever people have tried to draw up lists of how they think people voted PB is remarkably similar to the general public across parties and Leave/Remain.
I think the only reason some leftwing posters tend to feel like they're not represented properly is they fail to recognise each other as left wing.
I think that is an interesting observation. There are definitely quite a few 'Liberals' as opposed to 'Social Democrats' on this site and as a demographic that doesn't surprise me that they are drawn to the site. I suspect that Tories will consider them 'leftwing' whereas they may not consider themselves so. I have been accused for being a leftie on several occasions by Tories whom I consider to be left of me when it comes to both business and freedoms.
So I think your observation is correct, although I dispute lots of us are actually leftwing (Catch 22). I'm definitely not.
Well indeed, there's definitely a strong liberal contingent here.
The funny thing with left v liberal is that the left tends to view liberals as "not left" when it suits them (eg complaining the site is biased) but then on election day deems it as read that the liberals must want a Labour government.
I was more thinking there's a distinction between what you might term the Blair-style centre-left Labour (eg SouthamObserver etc) and the Corbyn-style far-left (eg BigJohnOwls etc)
You are basically a right wing Liberal not a Conservative for example, apart from Brexit you could easily be an Orange Book LD
Does HYUFD have a point Philip? I'm scratching my head over that one. I feel I disagree with you too much for it to be true but......
Yes. I am socially liberal, economically dry. When PoliticalCompass first came out I was placed in the extreme bottom-right hand side corner (very right wing on economics, very liberal on social matters).
I view Nick Clegg as closer to my beliefs than Theresa May.
I don't like the name of my party. I am not a conservative with a small c. In Australia the name of the right wing party, the sister party to the UK's Conservatives, is the Liberal Party. That suits me better.
The conservative party in Australia is the National Party, it is just in coalition with the Liberal Party
I never said the conservative party in Australia, I said the Conservative Party in Australia.
The conservative party in Australia is the National Party. I wouldn't support them, but would give them my second preference under their AV voting system because of the coalition. The Conservative Party in Australia is the Liberal Party.
And as I said I would support the Liberal Party.
The largest centre right party you mean, not the conservative party.
In New Zealand the Nationals are the main centre right party, in Canada the Conservative Party of Canada is.
Australia like Japan and the Netherlands just has a liberal party as the main centre right party
No, I know Australian politics much better than you do. I grew up Down Under.
The sister party to the Conservative Party in Australia is the Liberal Party. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party are both founding members of the International Democrat Union (IDU) and the Liberal Party is even associated with the ECR European Parliament grouping that David Cameron helped set up too.
One thing Australian newspapers are very good at it using capital letters correctly when referring to conservative or Conservative or liberal or Liberal etc
The National Party are also members of the IDU
Not founding members. The Conservative Party in the UK and their sister party the Liberal Party of Australia were founding members of the organisation.
I remember seeing Robin Cook walking down a train carriage once.
John Smith in the bar car of the Edinburgh Sleeper, holding court to adoring acolytes, "thirsty".
Charles Clarke on the opposite escalator at Victoria, red in the face
Michael Heseltine behind me in the queue for a payphone at King Cross - it wasn't working.
Betty Boothroyd on the number 82 bus.
Mrs T in the Holiday Inn Cramlington (power had been cut the day before as Special Branch searched for bombs)
The Queen at Newcastle Races.
My chance encounters of the third kind:
Mrs Thatcher sitting almost immediately in front of me in the stalls at Glyndebourne, some time in the 90s I think. Luckily she was one seat to the right of me, otherwise my view would have been obstructed by her hair.
Also at Glyndebourne, walking in the garden just before the performance, that man of the people, Jim Callaghan.
And a third Glyndebourne encounter, Danny Alexander at the height of the coalition years. He was wearing a kilt and looked rather dashing. He seemed to be looking at his phone most of the time and left at the interval. Ah, the cares of office!
Also during the coalition, a couple of weeks after parliament started sitting again in 2010, Vince Cable passed me on Westminster Bridge. He looked thoroughly confused.
Oh, and George Osborne and his family in the Paul Hamlyn bar at Covent Garden. His pre-ordered interval sandwiches and drinks were laid out immediately next to ours. He was talking about his next trip to Bayreuth. (No champagne, though - just white wine. We were enjoying the superb R de Ruinart).
Ed Balls (plus Yvette and family) on the ECML whatever it was before Virgin East Coast.
George Osborne outside The Duke of York's production of Ink.
Tony Blair, when he was PM, in the Surfside Bar, Holetown, watching Arsenal vs Chelsea.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
That isn't new. As I said the Conservative Party is not a conservative party exclusively and never has been.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising.
While we're on the subject, the one I've never heard of walked into a bar and the barman says "why the long face...?"
Sorry...
I presume they were unchallenged because for one various people have commented on odd looking male politicians, and that there may be an unfairness in female politicians getting so judged more than male ones was also noted, and part of it was about dress which does apply to men, and it was all rather detached in tone for the most part.
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
Men are always judging women on their appearance. It is so commonplace that I think most of us simply put up with it (most of the time).
I find find it rather amazing TBH, given how many men seem to have jeans halfway down their a*se or shirts that are not even close to fitting.
Quite.
Still of the three Daisy looks lovely and stylish, Ed Daley is presentable and well dressed and Layla needs to find a suit that fits properly and that doesn’t make her look as as if she picked it off the rails at an Oxfam shop with her eyes shut.
Went off Layla after hearing her during the last GE campaign. I like Ed Davey. Know nothing about Daisy Cooper. A party that spoke up for true liberal values would be nice. Not sure if the LibDems are that party anymore, though.
Davey doesn't dress well imo, but British men rarely do. Usually a combination of being shaped like sacks of spuds and not caring much about their own appearance. There is also a suspicion that dressing well is just vanity.
I can't wait to be out of scrubs and back to cutting a dashing figure myself.
In Opposition, Labour often make conciliatory overtures. In the run-up to 1997 we saw this. When they realised they needed no help after all, they dropped the Lib Dems instantly (well, they gave Roy Jenkins a Commission to investigate voting reform which they promptly gave a stiff ignoring to).
It's possible that if they do need support after 2024, they might follow up. It would be unusual, but possible. The posts of Labour supporters on here show how they'd feel about that prospect, though (eg the one I initially replied to)
It's pretty clear that we'll need LibDem confidence and supply at least, and I think Starmer is very much in the "whatever works" camp, as are most of the MPs and membership. The devil is in the detail as always. Personally I think PR in local government as an explicit trial for PR nationally would be a good compromise. Absolutely nobody but the most hardline partisans thinks that authorities with 100% of councillors from one party are a good idea.
Historically, I'm pretty sure that Tony Blair wanted a coalition with Paddy Ashdown in 1997, but the size of Labour's majority made it difficult to justify to members (in the same way that even the most centrist Tories are not currently urging Boris to invite the LibDems to join the Government). Privately he'd probably have been content with a smaller majority and a coalition.
Income tax was set up to support the Napoleonic Wars, I wonder if @HYUFD thinks that means its not a tax too?
Income tax reasons of the first few taxes, hence it is called a tax not an insurance like National Insurance
A Jaffa cake is a biscuit.
And the World Series is not open to teams from the whole planet.
A Jaffa cake is not a biscuit according to the court ruling of 1991.
Where is it found in supermarkets? Eh? Not the cake section. Where do you find the Penguin bars? At the pet shop?
It's a biscuit.
Shhhh. If it were classed as a biscuit it would cost 20% more.
Any reason why VAT isn't levied on cake?
Biscuits and cakes are "necessities" and are therefore zero rated.
However, chocolate covered biscuits are deemed to be luxury items and are therefore VATable. Chocolate covered cake is not a luxury item.
Thus the Jaffa Cake case...
Your honour
VAT is levied at 0% on cake.
Some of the world's most expensive lawyers devote their lives to questions about the difference between a cake and biscuit, and whether the colour of Cadbury's Dairy Milk wrappers or the configuration of a Kit Kat can be trademarked.
BTW everyone knows that a cake when left in the tin for too long dries up, while a biscuit left too long gets damp. Thus a Jaffa cake is a cake.
From memory isn't the latter how they won their case? By demonstrating the cake had cake characteristics like that not biscuit characteristics.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
That isn't new. As I said the Conservative Party is not a conservative party exclusively and never has been.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
Conservative yes please, conservative no thanks.
Have you ever voted UKIP out of interest?
No.
Fair enough, so when Cameron was running things you voted as a "best of the worst" type thing?
On homosexuality, the Tories introduced Section 28.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
I doubt Mrs May would agree much with your last paragraphs!
I tend to not be in particular agreement with Mrs May on a number of things
Indeed but there are plenty of examples of the right not compromising (such as the last parliament) and of the left compromising. Indeed compromising was central to Blairism and that was dominant in the Labour party for 15 years plus. I think you may be reading into this what you would like to believe.
Its a rule of thumb not a hardfast rule. But I think Blair was the exception that proves the rule and it is why he succeeded so well.
I don't think its remotely a coincidence that the only successful Labour leader in my entire life is the one who had the characteristics I described.
As an original liberal and founder member lib dem I think I’ll vote Davey but will see how cooper comes over. You have to remember lib dems love fighting elections at the local level and serving their communities i doubt they will ever be swept into power but if they were there would be some right weirdos elected. Running your local council is the height of most members ambition, anything else is a bonus.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
That isn't new. As I said the Conservative Party is not a conservative party exclusively and never has been.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
Conservative yes please, conservative no thanks.
Have you ever voted UKIP out of interest?
No.
Fair enough, so when Cameron was running things you voted as a "best of the worst" type thing?
On homosexuality, the Tories introduced Section 28.
And they later introduced gay marriage. Funny how things change, isn't it?
Tony Blair, when he was PM, in the Surfside Bar, Holetown, watching Arsenal vs Chelsea.
I met Blair in Basra when he flew out to Ocean on a Chinook and they wanted an FAA type pressganged to handle the radios. He was very normal and demonstrated a modicum of ability to conceal the fact that he was shitting himself.
They would not put him on a Lynx for the flight even though it was judged a perfectly adequate a/c for us to fly into browned out hot LZs while overloaded.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
That isn't new. As I said the Conservative Party is not a conservative party exclusively and never has been.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
Conservative yes please, conservative no thanks.
Have you ever voted UKIP out of interest?
No.
Fair enough, so when Cameron was running things you voted as a "best of the worst" type thing?
On homosexuality, the Tories introduced Section 28.
No. When Cameron was running things I supported him wholeheartedly. He's not perfect, nobody is, but he's my sort of Conservative. I voted for him wholeheartedly in the leadership election that got him elected, I campaigned for the party in 2010 and 2015. I went to Party Conference in 2014 and 2015, I was very engaged and happy with Cameron.
I tore up my membership in disgust when May was elected. I saw her for what she was long before Brexit tore her apart.
The Conservatives may have introduced Section 28 but you need to look at it at the time they were in. The Conservatives also introduced equal marriage (something I supported and campaigned for) and Thatcher voted to legalise homosexuality.
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising.
While we're on the subject, the one I've never heard of walked into a bar and the barman says "why the long face...?"
Sorry...
I presume they were unchallenged because for one various people have commented on odd looking male politicians, and that there may be an unfairness in female politicians getting so judged more than male ones was also noted, and part of it was about dress which does apply to men, and it was all rather detached in tone for the most part.
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
Men are always judging women on their appearance. It is so commonplace that I think most of us simply put up with it (most of the time).
I find find it rather amazing TBH, given how many men seem to have jeans halfway down their a*se or shirts that are not even close to fitting.
Quite.
Still of the three Daisy looks lovely and stylish, Ed Daley is presentable and well dressed and Layla needs to find a suit that fits properly and that doesn’t make her look as as if she picked it off the rails at an Oxfam shop with her eyes shut.
Went off Layla after hearing her during the last GE campaign. I like Ed Davey. Know nothing about Daisy Cooper. A party that spoke up for true liberal values would be nice. Not sure if the LibDems are that party anymore, though.
Davey doesn't dress well imo, but British men rarely do. Usually a combination of being shaped like sacks of spuds and
That this is true for me does not make it less hurtful doc )
Income tax was set up to support the Napoleonic Wars, I wonder if @HYUFD thinks that means its not a tax too?
Income tax reasons of the first few taxes, hence it is called a tax not an insurance like National Insurance
A Jaffa cake is a biscuit.
And the World Series is not open to teams from the whole planet.
A Jaffa cake is not a biscuit according to the court ruling of 1991.
Where is it found in supermarkets? Eh? Not the cake section. Where do you find the Penguin bars? At the pet shop?
It's a biscuit.
Shhhh. If it were classed as a biscuit it would cost 20% more.
Any reason why VAT isn't levied on cake?
Biscuits and cakes are "necessities" and are therefore zero rated.
However, chocolate covered biscuits are deemed to be luxury items and are therefore VATable. Chocolate covered cake is not a luxury item.
Thus the Jaffa Cake case...
Your honour
VAT is levied at 0% on cake.
Some of the world's most expensive lawyers devote their lives to questions about the difference between a cake and biscuit, and whether the colour of Cadbury's Dairy Milk wrappers or the configuration of a Kit Kat can be trademarked.
BTW everyone knows that a cake when left in the tin for too long dries up, while a biscuit left too long gets damp. Thus a Jaffa cake is a cake.
From memory isn't the latter how they won their case? By demonstrating the cake had cake characteristics like that not biscuit characteristics.
Yes. It walked like a cake and talked like a cake, so to speak. So they determined it was a cake.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
That isn't new. As I said the Conservative Party is not a conservative party exclusively and never has been.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
Conservative yes please, conservative no thanks.
This is so painfully obvious that it is remarkable that it needs explaining. Conservatives do not believe in change for change's sake (although they can be as guilty of that as the next party) but do want changes for the better. What they are looking for is a richer, fairer country with more equality of opportunity, not necessarily equality of outcomes. They accept the capitalist principle that success and hard work should be rewarded and that a persons family is entitled to share in that success because working for your kids is a strong motivational factor. They also accept that a property owning democracy is a more stable and happier society than one where the majority are excluded.
Of course some of their policies are better at achieving these objectives than others. Mistakes are undoubtedly made. But the moralising, condescending attitudes of the Left piss me off. I recognise and accept that they have a genuine vision of what they think would be a better society (ideally one without gulags, secret police or killing fields but hey, everyone makes mistakes). It is a shame that they cannot reciprocate.
I like Davey, and voted for him over Swinson last year. I may well do so again.
I don't know enough of Daisy, but will have a look. I do like Layla, and she comes over fresh and bright on all media, but not convinced on leadership skills. She is a bit erratic.
I thought Davey was by far the better choice last time out, and I said so. With the benefit of hindsight, I was right.
There is no dignity in kicking a dead corpse, but Swinson’s flaws were legion, and glaringly obvious to uninvolved observers. We need not list them now.
I have not yet come to any conclusion for this new contest. All three of them look miles better than the last few leaders.
Moran comes over very well on radio, but seeing her for the first time is a bit of a shock. This may sound superficial and misogynistic, but it is a serious point. When was the last time a truly odd-looking individual led a political party? (Margaret Beckett doesn’t really count.)
Isn’t there a saying that politics is show business for ugly people? I’m not sure any party leader in my lifetime, with the exceptions of Blair and Cameron, have been particular handsome.
Please note that I did not say that Moran was ugly. Odd-looking is not the same thing.
For example, Margaret Thatcher was most definitely odd-looking, but she was definitely not ugly. In fact, it seems to be universally accepted that the lady had a certain je ne sais quoi.
It could even be argued that odd-looking leaders do unusually well: Churchill, Thatcher, Charlie Kennedy, Ian Paisley snr, Alex Salmond.
Thatcher: just no. The ridiculous hair. That awful voice. The mad eyes. Surely only weird Tory MPs with a domination thing, and Francois Mitterrand, thought she had a certain je ne sais quoi? (I don't normally comment on female politicians' physical appearance but I will make an exception for Maggie).
This pains me to say... but I have a guilty secret...
Don't worry, I won't tell anybody. There's a certain member of the current Cabinet who I have a bit of a thing for, despite finding every aspect of her political views absolutely repulsive. These things happen, I won't judge you.
I was appalled by Thatcher's politics but always thought of her as a good-looking woman - until the dental surgery changed the lower part of her face in the 1990s.
In Opposition, Labour often make conciliatory overtures. In the run-up to 1997 we saw this. When they realised they needed no help after all, they dropped the Lib Dems instantly (well, they gave Roy Jenkins a Commission to investigate voting reform which they promptly gave a stiff ignoring to).
It's possible that if they do need support after 2024, they might follow up. It would be unusual, but possible. The posts of Labour supporters on here show how they'd feel about that prospect, though (eg the one I initially replied to)
It's pretty clear that we'll need LibDem confidence and supply at least, and I think Starmer is very much in the "whatever works" camp, as are most of the MPs and membership. The devil is in the detail as always. Personally I think PR in local government as an explicit trial for PR nationally would be a good compromise. Absolutely nobody but the most hardline partisans thinks that authorities with 100% of councillors from one party are a good idea.
Historically, I'm pretty sure that Tony Blair wanted a coalition with Paddy Ashdown in 1997, but the size of Labour's majority made it difficult to justify to members (in the same way that even the most centrist Tories are not currently urging Boris to invite the LibDems to join the Government). Privately he'd probably have been content with a smaller majority and a coalition.
Wonder what Cabinet job Ashdown would have had?
It was Prescott who scuppered voting reform AIUI.
I’ve floated this before but can’t prove it but Paddy turned down the offer of NI Sec after the election because it would split the party.
Not that long ago, the Lib Dems were a party I would have considered voting for. I barely know what they are about these days and the 'barely' bit is not something I could vote for.
Moran - awful, utterly voter repellent. Davey - safe option, at least maintain current status or increase slightly. Cooper - negative-she isn't the one off This County. Positive-she isn't Moran or a complete fruit cake.
With the amount of time until the next GE, I'd go for Cooper. She can always be replaced, by Davey again probably.
The loss of Norman Lamb has deprived them of the sensible wing of the party. The result in North Norfolk is an unpleasant pointer for the future for the Lib Dems.
It was greatly unfortunate that Brexit/the LD position prevented Lamb standing for leadership in 2017 (and maybe also that he lost in 2015, although I'm not sure that was the right time for him).
I think Swinson's loss was very much the Lib Dems loss as well. She made some bad mistakes. She won't have the opportunity to learn from those mistakes, which I think she would have done. The Lib Dems big problem now is the tiny MP gene pool. They are all pavement politicians (literally going on about pavements), which helps them win seats in difficult circumstances. It doesn't give them any insight into the broader picture. The Lib Dems are also unfortunate that none of the Change UK candidates won their seats. It would have given them some genetic diversity.
She was utter crap
She was like a woke Ruth Davidson. Completely the wrong person at the wrong time.
That's interesting - how do you mean, please?
The opportunity for the Lib Dems lay in peeling the Remain vote in the south of England away from the Tories. A unionist Scot with a penchant for identity politics who was more interested in fighting the SNP was the worst possible person to do that.
Income tax was set up to support the Napoleonic Wars, I wonder if @HYUFD thinks that means its not a tax too?
Income tax reasons of the first few taxes, hence it is called a tax not an insurance like National Insurance
A Jaffa cake is a biscuit.
And the World Series is not open to teams from the whole planet.
A Jaffa cake is not a biscuit according to the court ruling of 1991.
Where is it found in supermarkets? Eh? Not the cake section. Where do you find the Penguin bars? At the pet shop?
It's a biscuit.
Shhhh. If it were classed as a biscuit it would cost 20% more.
Any reason why VAT isn't levied on cake?
Biscuits and cakes are "necessities" and are therefore zero rated.
However, chocolate covered biscuits are deemed to be luxury items and are therefore VATable. Chocolate covered cake is not a luxury item.
Thus the Jaffa Cake case...
Your honour
VAT is levied at 0% on cake.
Some of the world's most expensive lawyers devote their lives to questions about the difference between a cake and biscuit, and whether the colour of Cadbury's Dairy Milk wrappers or the configuration of a Kit Kat can be trademarked.
BTW everyone knows that a cake when left in the tin for too long dries up, while a biscuit left too long gets damp. Thus a Jaffa cake is a cake.
From memory isn't the latter how they won their case? By demonstrating the cake had cake characteristics like that not biscuit characteristics.
Yes. It walked like a cake and talked like a cake, so to speak. So they determined it was a cake.
Although of course it's a biscuit.
In its essence it is a cake, but in its function it is a biscuit.
I think Swinson's loss was very much the Lib Dems loss as well. She made some bad mistakes. She won't have the opportunity to learn from those mistakes, which I think she would have done. The Lib Dems big problem now is the tiny MP gene pool. They are all pavement politicians (literally going on about pavements), which helps them win seats in difficult circumstances. It doesn't give them any insight into the broader picture. The Lib Dems are also unfortunate that none of the Change UK candidates won their seats. It would have given them some genetic diversity.
She was utter crap
She was like a woke Ruth Davidson. Completely the wrong person at the wrong time.
That's interesting - how do you mean, please?
The opportunity for the Lib Dems lay in peeling the Remain vote in the south of England away from the Tories. A unionist Scot with a penchant for identity politics who was more interested in fighting the SNP was the worst possible person to do that.
Thank you.
Arguably the Lib Dems failed to do that because their voters were more scared of Corbyn than Brexit.
Even in 2020 it seems we can have loads of basically unchallenged comments on women politicians looks alone. I'm ont offended, i don;t give a toss. Just find it interesting and little surprising.
While we're on the subject, the one I've never heard of walked into a bar and the barman says "why the long face...?"
Sorry...
I presume they were unchallenged because for one various people have commented on odd looking male politicians, and that there may be an unfairness in female politicians getting so judged more than male ones was also noted, and part of it was about dress which does apply to men, and it was all rather detached in tone for the most part.
Theres a careful line when it comes to appearance, since appearance does matter (which is not the same as having to look good or stylish necessarily) but can easily become uncomfortable.
Men are always judging women on their appearance. It is so commonplace that I think most of us simply put up with it (most of the time).
I find find it rather amazing TBH, given how many men seem to have jeans halfway down their a*se or shirts that are not even close to fitting.
Quite.
Still of the three Daisy looks lovely and stylish, Ed Daley is presentable and well dressed and Layla needs to find a suit that fits properly and that doesn’t make her look as as if she picked it off the rails at an Oxfam shop with her eyes shut.
Went off Layla after hearing her during the last GE campaign. I like Ed Davey. Know nothing about Daisy Cooper. A party that spoke up for true liberal values would be nice. Not sure if the LibDems are that party anymore, though.
Davey doesn't dress well imo, but British men rarely do. Usually a combination of being shaped like sacks of spuds and
That this is true for me does not make it less hurtful doc )
Foxy's a doc that's always up front about bad news.
I remember seeing Robin Cook walking down a train carriage once.
John Smith in the bar car of the Edinburgh Sleeper, holding court to adoring acolytes, "thirsty".
Charles Clarke on the opposite escalator at Victoria, red in the face
Michael Heseltine behind me in the queue for a payphone at King Cross - it wasn't working.
Betty Boothroyd on the number 82 bus.
Mrs T in the Holiday Inn Cramlington (power had been cut the day before as Special Branch searched for bombs)
The Queen at Newcastle Races.
My chance encounters of the third kind:
Mrs Thatcher sitting almost immediately in front of me in the stalls at Glyndebourne, some time in the 90s I think. Luckily she was one seat to the right of me, otherwise my view would have been obstructed by her hair.
Also at Glyndebourne, walking in the garden just before the performance, that man of the people, Jim Callaghan.
And a third Glyndebourne encounter, Danny Alexander at the height of the coalition years. He was wearing a kilt and looked rather dashing. He seemed to be looking at his phone most of the time and left at the interval. Ah, the cares of office!
Also during the coalition, a couple of weeks after parliament started sitting again in 2010, Vince Cable passed me on Westminster Bridge. He looked thoroughly confused.
Oh, and George Osborne and his family in the Paul Hamlyn bar at Covent Garden. His pre-ordered interval sandwiches and drinks were laid out immediately next to ours. He was talking about his next trip to Bayreuth. (No champagne, though - just white wine. We were enjoying the superb R de Ruinart).
Ed Balls (plus Yvette and family) on the ECML whatever it was before Virgin East Coast.
George Osborne outside The Duke of York's production of Ink.
Tony Blair, when he was PM, in the Surfside Bar, Holetown, watching Arsenal vs Chelsea.
I can beat all that. Raul Jimenez plus partner and two dogs at the vets surgery. You might scoff but that's the equivalent of royalty in Wolverhampton.
Regarding non-chance encounters, I had an interesting chat with Keir Starmer about Brexit at a party fundraiser at the end of 2016.
Davey's positioning the party to the right of the Conservatives on economics is brave. He might look very clever this time next year, or he risks reminding voters that when push comes to shove, the LibDems back the Tories.
I think the key point is that when push comes to shove, the Tories will back other parties (including the Lib Dems) and work with them for the duration of the agreement, while Labour simply don't play well with others.
I had a look at the history of hung Parliaments and times when the ruling party had a very weak majority - the Tories are far more likely to talk with others and agree compromise, while Labour have a tendency to insist on going it alone.
It rather surprised me; I'd have thought it was the other way around.
Callaghan was propped up by the Liberals as was Macdonald
"Far more likely"
In the 1890s, the Tories dealt in depth with the Liberal Unionists until they absorbed them.
In 1918, the Tories went with the Liberals even though they could go it alone. They stuck to their agreement for years, even though they could go it alone and the end of that agreement was such a significant moment for the Tories it cost them their leader and their backbench Committee is named after it to this day.
In 1923, the Liberals expected Labour to want to work with them and MacDonald ignored them - basically daring them to try to bring him down. Asquith decided to unilaterally support them anyway, but got nothing for it. Labour also switched to anti-PR at that point.
In 1929, the same as 1923.
In the Thirties, Labour were the only party to refuse a National Coalition. The Liberals split under the pressure. The Tories kept offering a place to the Liberals (even standing down in some constituencies).
In 1964, Grimond expected Wilson to offer a deal to prop him up, but instead Labour doubled down on attacking the Liberals to try to pick up a majority.
In 1974, Heath had full-on talks with the Liberals but couldn't bring the rest of his party along. Wilson didn't even open up talks.
The Lib-Lab deal in 1977 was the only time Labour have properly offered the Liberal Party anything, and that really wasn't much in practice.
In 2010, Labour (despite Brown's intent) offered sod-all to the Lib Dems, while Cameron gave them half their manifesto in a single chunk.
The danger with the Tories is they'll actually hug you close longer than necessary and work towards absorption (Clegg and co probably didn't need the FTPA). Labour work towards exclusion.
Very well said. Two further points.
Some here like Scott call the current government the Brexit Party government (or others say the Vote Leave government) and are phrasing it like that as an insult. But nothing could be more traditionally Conservative than recognising that there are votes for Brexit and pivoting to support tht as a result.
Secondly I think there is a philosophical reason why this happens and it goes back to the People's Front of Judea vs Judean People's Front splits that we often refer to on the left.
Conservatives philosophically believe we are right (as in correct) but we also believe in what works. If compromising with your political opponents works then that's easier for us to do. The left tend to philosophically believe they are right (as in correct) too they also believe far more that their view and only theirs is the one true morally right opinion too. Which makes it much harder for them to make compromises, because its not just compromising your politics but compromising your moral core too.
Brexit is not conservative, it's the complete opposite.
Did you miss my whole point earlier on the difference between Conservative and conservative?
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
The modern Conservative Party is not in any way conservative in the traditional sense.
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
That isn't new. As I said the Conservative Party is not a conservative party exclusively and never has been.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
Conservative yes please, conservative no thanks.
Have you ever voted UKIP out of interest?
No.
Fair enough, so when Cameron was running things you voted as a "best of the worst" type thing?
On homosexuality, the Tories introduced Section 28.
And they later introduced gay marriage. Funny how things change, isn't it?
Quite. The history of a party is not wholly irrelevant, especially if there is a deliberate attempt to suggest continuity and consistency with particular past policies.
But it's certainly not as important as what a party is now, especially where they have taken action which repudiates past actions. Many Tories did not vote for gay marriage but many did, a government led by them did and they have many gap MPs. That makes it more complicated than that they introduced section 28.
People refusing to accept parties have changed is a major reason people tribally stick to an old vote even if it seems like it makes no sense. Happens both ways. It has taken Brexit for some former diehard conservatives to consider it is not the party for them anymore.
In Opposition, Labour often make conciliatory overtures. In the run-up to 1997 we saw this. When they realised they needed no help after all, they dropped the Lib Dems instantly (well, they gave Roy Jenkins a Commission to investigate voting reform which they promptly gave a stiff ignoring to).
It's possible that if they do need support after 2024, they might follow up. It would be unusual, but possible. The posts of Labour supporters on here show how they'd feel about that prospect, though (eg the one I initially replied to)
Surely the vast majority of Labour members would go for a LD/Lab coalition/deal of some kind over Boris in a heartbeat.
So then its just down to arithmetic and horsetrading.
Honestly, I think a LD/Lab coalition might have been better than the Blair govt in some ways. Iraq might never have happened, less of the authoritarian stuff like detention without trial, rendition and torture...
Income tax was set up to support the Napoleonic Wars, I wonder if @HYUFD thinks that means its not a tax too?
Income tax reasons of the first few taxes, hence it is called a tax not an insurance like National Insurance
A Jaffa cake is a biscuit.
And the World Series is not open to teams from the whole planet.
A Jaffa cake is not a biscuit according to the court ruling of 1991.
Where is it found in supermarkets? Eh? Not the cake section. Where do you find the Penguin bars? At the pet shop?
It's a biscuit.
Shhhh. If it were classed as a biscuit it would cost 20% more.
Any reason why VAT isn't levied on cake?
Cake has been viewed as a necessity since the time of Marie Antoinette. Whereas biscuits are luxuries as demonstrated by their heavy consumption in public school dormitories. (This topic has also been dealt with less flippantly below).
Tony Blair, when he was PM, in the Surfside Bar, Holetown, watching Arsenal vs Chelsea.
I met Blair in Basra when he flew out to Ocean on a Chinook and they wanted an FAA type pressganged to handle the radios. He was very normal and demonstrated a modicum of ability to conceal the fact that he was shitting himself.
They would not put him on a Lynx for the flight even though it was judged a perfectly adequate a/c for us to fly into browned out hot LZs while overloaded.
Serendipitously this just turned up on my twitter. No idea if it's decent or just branded fluff, the latter I imagine.
On gay marriage, without the Lib Dems the policy wouldn't have passed.
Without labour votes it wouldnt have passed either. The point is a view of 'they introduced section 28' is a wilfully misleading picture when seeking to assess the party on the issue now.
It wont be the only party that such happens to, of course, but it's the example in question.
I remember seeing Robin Cook walking down a train carriage once.
John Smith in the bar car of the Edinburgh Sleeper, holding court to adoring acolytes, "thirsty".
Charles Clarke on the opposite escalator at Victoria, red in the face
Michael Heseltine behind me in the queue for a payphone at King Cross - it wasn't working.
Betty Boothroyd on the number 82 bus.
Mrs T in the Holiday Inn Cramlington (power had been cut the day before as Special Branch searched for bombs)
The Queen at Newcastle Races.
My chance encounters of the third kind:
Mrs Thatcher sitting almost immediately in front of me in the stalls at Glyndebourne, some time in the 90s I think. Luckily she was one seat to the right of me, otherwise my view would have been obstructed by her hair.
Also at Glyndebourne, walking in the garden just before the performance, that man of the people, Jim Callaghan.
And a third Glyndebourne encounter, Danny Alexander at the height of the coalition years. He was wearing a kilt and looked rather dashing. He seemed to be looking at his phone most of the time and left at the interval. Ah, the cares of office!
Also during the coalition, a couple of weeks after parliament started sitting again in 2010, Vince Cable passed me on Westminster Bridge. He looked thoroughly confused.
Oh, and George Osborne and his family in the Paul Hamlyn bar at Covent Garden. His pre-ordered interval sandwiches and drinks were laid out immediately next to ours. He was talking about his next trip to Bayreuth. (No champagne, though - just white wine. We were enjoying the superb R de Ruinart).
Ed Balls (plus Yvette and family) on the ECML whatever it was before Virgin East Coast.
George Osborne outside The Duke of York's production of Ink.
Tony Blair, when he was PM, in the Surfside Bar, Holetown, watching Arsenal vs Chelsea.
I can beat all that. Raul Jimenez plus partner and two dogs at the vets surgery. You might scoff but that's the equivalent of royalty in Wolverhampton.
Regarding non-chance encounters, I had an interesting chat with Keir Starmer about Brexit at a party fundraiser at the end of 2016.
Charles Clarke, in the gents at Carrow Road (Norwich City), during the tuition fee rows (Labour version). William Hague, Bath Green Park while having Christmas lunch (me, not him. I've no idea what he had for lunch).
Comments
What with Craig Murray I'm beginning to wander about recruitment criteria for the UK diplomatic service.
I am a Conservative and Unionist, which is why I didn't vote for Brexit and can't vote for BoZo and chums.
Still of the three Daisy looks lovely and stylish, Ed Daley is presentable and well dressed and Layla needs to find a suit that fits properly and that doesn’t make her look as as if she picked it off the rails at an Oxfam shop with her eyes shut.
Went off Layla after hearing her during the last GE campaign. I like Ed Davey. Know nothing about Daisy Cooper. A party that spoke up for true liberal values would be nice. Not sure if the LibDems are that party anymore, though.
Capital C Conservative and lower c conservative are not the same word and don't mean the same thing.
There was some wittering, from politicians, about making public services "like John Lewis".
As in responsive to individuals rather than steam-rollering anything that isn't quite average. Then they discovered this would require distributed management and decision making. Plus expecting people to use judgement.
And so it softly and suddenly vanished away....
Because no-one in the political class wants *Judges* to exercise judgement, let alone mere peons.
However, chocolate covered biscuits are deemed to be luxury items and are therefore VATable. Chocolate covered cake is not a luxury item.
Thus the Jaffa Cake case...
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/1263391259852447745?s=20
Historically, I'm pretty sure that Tony Blair wanted a coalition with Paddy Ashdown in 1997, but the size of Labour's majority made it difficult to justify to members (in the same way that even the most centrist Tories are not currently urging Boris to invite the LibDems to join the Government). Privately he'd probably have been content with a smaller majority and a coalition.
Mrs Thatcher sitting almost immediately in front of me in the stalls at Glyndebourne, some time in the 90s I think. Luckily she was one seat to the right of me, otherwise my view would have been obstructed by her hair.
Also at Glyndebourne, walking in the garden just before the performance, that man of the people, Jim Callaghan.
And a third Glyndebourne encounter, Danny Alexander at the height of the coalition years. He was wearing a kilt and looked rather dashing. He seemed to be looking at his phone most of the time and left at the interval. Ah, the cares of office!
Also during the coalition, a couple of weeks after parliament started sitting again in 2010, Vince Cable passed me on Westminster Bridge. He looked thoroughly confused.
Oh, and George Osborne and his family in the Paul Hamlyn bar at Covent Garden. His pre-ordered interval sandwiches and drinks were laid out immediately next to ours. He was talking about his next trip to Bayreuth. (No champagne, though - just white wine. We were enjoying the superb R de Ruinart).
It is now the manifestation of what happens when Brexit Party/UKIP take over a once respected party.
What I find most astonishing is that you cannot see that what happened to Labour, has now happened to the Tories.
However, if a biscuit has chocolate it is a luxury biscuit, therefore taxable.
Simples.
He didn't say "all tax" or even "tax".
I have _a lot_ of time for Jonathan Portes but this is just bizarre.
VAT is levied at 0% on cake.
I know nothing about the others except Davey has been around for quite a while and Ms Cooper has not been around long enough to be leading a party.
I voted LD last time because of the loathing I had for the other two parties, not because I liked them. They were merely the least objectionable
Moran - awful, utterly voter repellent.
Davey - safe option, at least maintain current status or increase slightly.
Cooper - negative-she isn't the one off This County. Positive-she isn't Moran or a complete fruit cake.
With the amount of time until the next GE, I'd go for Cooper. She can always be replaced, by Davey again probably.
The loss of Norman Lamb has deprived them of the sensible wing of the party. The result in North Norfolk is an unpleasant pointer for the future for the Lib Dems.
Labour and the Lib Dems must work together and I hope Starmer will be a leader the Lib Dems can get behind.
Was David Cameron conservative? Was George Osborne? Was Margaret Thatcher?
Theresa May represents the conservative wing of the Conservative Party which is why I have no time for her (well that and more importantly her disgusting xenophobia). The socially liberal economically dry wing of the party that has been represented down the years by the likes of Cameron, or Thatcher who in her day voted to legalise homosexuality is the Conservative Parry I support.
Conservative yes please, conservative no thanks.
BTW everyone knows that a cake when left in the tin for too long dries up, while a biscuit left too long gets damp. Thus a Jaffa cake is a cake.
Politically that would be quite hard to attack.
My personal favourite: "Whether “Beyblade”, was correctly
classified as “other toys” under Heading 9503 of the Combined Nomenclature (“CN”) and not, as Hasbro contended should be the case, as “articles for… table or parlour games” under Heading 9504."
"
George Osborne outside The Duke of York's production of Ink.
Tony Blair, when he was PM, in the Surfside Bar, Holetown, watching Arsenal vs Chelsea.
I can't wait to be out of scrubs and back to cutting a dashing figure myself.
It was Prescott who scuppered voting reform AIUI.
On homosexuality, the Tories introduced Section 28.
They'll need the cash after the collapse in international fee income.
I don't think its remotely a coincidence that the only successful Labour leader in my entire life is the one who had the characteristics I described.
They would not put him on a Lynx for the flight even though it was judged a perfectly adequate a/c for us to fly into browned out hot LZs while overloaded.
I tore up my membership in disgust when May was elected. I saw her for what she was long before Brexit tore her apart.
The Conservatives may have introduced Section 28 but you need to look at it at the time they were in. The Conservatives also introduced equal marriage (something I supported and campaigned for) and Thatcher voted to legalise homosexuality.
Although of course it's a biscuit.
Of course some of their policies are better at achieving these objectives than others. Mistakes are undoubtedly made. But the moralising, condescending attitudes of the Left piss me off. I recognise and accept that they have a genuine vision of what they think would be a better society (ideally one without gulags, secret police or killing fields but hey, everyone makes mistakes). It is a shame that they cannot reciprocate.
Unusual but there are other examples. The testing stats spring to mind. Both above target and lamentably below at one and the same time.
https://twitter.com/jimwaterson/status/1263379526790393858?s=20
I don't foresee the same issue with Starmer.
Regarding non-chance encounters, I had an interesting chat with Keir Starmer about Brexit at a party fundraiser at the end of 2016.
But it's certainly not as important as what a party is now, especially where they have taken action which repudiates past actions. Many Tories did not vote for gay marriage but many did, a government led by them did and they have many gap MPs. That makes it more complicated than that they introduced section 28.
People refusing to accept parties have changed is a major reason people tribally stick to an old vote even if it seems like it makes no sense. Happens both ways. It has taken Brexit for some former diehard conservatives to consider it is not the party for them anymore.
So then its just down to arithmetic and horsetrading.
Honestly, I think a LD/Lab coalition might have been better than the Blair govt in some ways. Iraq might never have happened, less of the authoritarian stuff like detention without trial, rendition and torture...
If it was a quantum state issue, it would collapse to one or other on observation....
Looks at jaffa cake - yup, still a cake and a biscuit.
shades of - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8yW5cyXXRc
https://twitter.com/Smicht/status/1263421024776998912?s=20
It wont be the only party that such happens to, of course, but it's the example in question.
William Hague, Bath Green Park while having Christmas lunch (me, not him. I've no idea what he had for lunch).
https://twitter.com/mancunianmedic/status/1262982297357365253?s=20
Their arguments on this were interesting.
I am just saying that the immigration we are going to end up with is not "controlled" in the way many Brexiteers think it will be.
Theres only one endgame for HK.