Balance: Jeremy Corbyn's tax return

Heartfeltdawn

@digitalscream Right now I couldn't say what any of the Lib Dem policies are. If you go by the basic measure of fliers coming through my door, the Lib Dems have been completely absent in a city (Bristol) where left-leaning opinion is not vacant. Even their own website lacks details about their policies. Nearly a year on from the General Election, the Liberal Democrats are effectively voiceless. The Spring Conference was last month. Did anything come out of it? 

The Green policies are indeed stupid. It's come a long way from the first election I voted in where I went Green on the basis that I was voting for a friend's father who was a thoroughly decent chap. I'm sure he'd balk at some of the bollocks on their website. I agree that their membership doesn't know what their policies are but that is also true of the Liberal Democrats. Of that rise in membership, none of them can have done so on the basis of official Lib Dem policy because there is no clearly visible Lib Dem policy since Farron took over. Corbyn's sat back for quite some time and understandably so but Farron has all the strength of a fart in a fog patch. 

digitalscream

Heartfeltdawn said:

The Green policies are indeed stupid. It's come a long way from the first election I voted in where I went Green on the basis that I was voting for a friend's father who was a thoroughly decent chap.

That's basically the Green pitch - "Vote for us, because we're nice people". They guilt-trip people they know into voting for them and persuading others to do so too. The bloke I was talking about was completely confused as to why being a "friend" (more an acquaintance, really) wasn't enough for me to vote for him.

Having had a window into their operations, it's basically a bunch of right-on, middle-class students with no frame of reference for real life, putting the world to rights in the total knowledge that they're right.

Heartfeltdawn said:

The Green policies are indeed stupid. It's come a long way from the first election I voted in where I went Green on the basis that I was voting for a friend's father who was a thoroughly decent chap. I'm sure he'd balk at some of the bollocks on their website. I agree that their membership doesn't know what their policies are but that is also true of the Liberal Democrats. Of that rise in membership, none of them can have done so on the basis of official Lib Dem policy because there is no clearly visible Lib Dem policy since Farron took over. Corbyn's sat back for quite some time and understandably so but Farron has all the strength of a fart in a fog patch. 

Couldn't agree more. I wonder if their lack of strength actually comes from the innate desire to be somewhere in the middle.

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

Fair enough - I can see moderate Labour voters moving to the Lib Dems and some left-leaning Tory voters (Cameron supporters) doing likewise when Boris becomes leader and the Tories lurch to the right. If Corbyn is still Labour leader there will be a big hole in the centre which the Lib Dems can fill. Lots of votes in the centre of British politics.

This is why the referendum is so crucial on a party level. 

Defections to the Lib Dems: on a local level, there's actually been more people moving from Lib Dem to Labour since Corbyn took over. Articles like this are not uncommon. I'm not convinced that the possible Lib Dem platform is as enticing as some articles have suggested. Now that we've seen Corbyn in action today, and for me it's been his best PMQ as Labour leader, then it's a firm starting point. Corbyn's Labour is a party that wants honesty with taxation and finances. Given the Lib Dems were happy taking huge sums of cash from a serial fraudster, I'm not sure how that honesty approach would apply to them. 

I feel strangely cheered by PMQs today. It's good to see some Labour digging in coupled with some good intense scrutiny of a Prime Minister and that it didn't disintegrate into witless bickering. It actually felt like a debate for once. 

Heartfeltdawn

digitalscream said:

That's basically the Green pitch - "Vote for us, because we're nice people". They guilt-trip people they know into voting for them and persuading others to do so too. The bloke I was talking about was completely confused as to why being a "friend" (more an acquaintance, really) wasn't enough for me to vote for him.

Having had a window into their operations, it's basically a bunch of right-on, middle-class students with no frame of reference for real life, putting the world to rights in the total knowledge that they're right.

Heartfeltdawn said:

The Green policies are indeed stupid. It's come a long way from the first election I voted in where I went Green on the basis that I was voting for a friend's father who was a thoroughly decent chap. I'm sure he'd balk at some of the bollocks on their website. I agree that their membership doesn't know what their policies are but that is also true of the Liberal Democrats. Of that rise in membership, none of them can have done so on the basis of official Lib Dem policy because there is no clearly visible Lib Dem policy since Farron took over. Corbyn's sat back for quite some time and understandably so but Farron has all the strength of a fart in a fog patch. 

Couldn't agree more. I wonder if their lack of strength actually comes from the innate desire to be somewhere in the middle.

Well, I cast my vote back then on the basis that he was an educated man who knew what he was talking about. It wasn't purely because he was a friend's father. I'm not that shallow  The modern Green Party is a curious mish mash of old hippies, the wealthy types who would drive an electric car, and the SJW crowd who don't feel Corbyn is radical enough. The policies alone last year were enough for me to condemn them. Caroline Lucas got out at the right time as leader. Despite standing for the Green Party as MP, she conducts herself int he same way as I saw many independent local councilors. A good politician in a shitty party.

With the Liberals, they don't know what branch of society they can attract. They can't go for the Tories because they've already been burnt by that association. A 'Tory lite' approach isn't going to help anyone. The SJW world is pretty split between Corbyn Labour, the Greens, and some of those peculiar groups featuring people with dreadlocks and dogs on bits of string. The old West Country support really got a kicking in 2015 and places like Bristol which should be a natural Lib Dem home is alien to them. Wales and Scotland are out as bases to achieve greater power. They can't go for the students because they fucked that market up the arse in 2010. The atheists won't go for Farron as he's religious and has links to Christian Action Research and Education and it's unlikely he'll ever be someone to go all out campaigning for LGBT rights. 

So who the hell does that leave? 

In the meantime, the Libs are still thinking about how to drive the membership. What they need is a good company whose name hasn't become a byword for crap performance. Step forward.... Atos. It is true that the admin side of Atos is a long way removed from the Healthcare side but it's still a name that strikes a bell with a certain part of the electorate. 

ESBlonde

Fretwired said:

 I think we're in for a hung parliement.

That's the best news we've had in decades. ;-)

ESBlonde

I think the Lib Dem party is a bunch of well meaning people who have a party that becomes a refuge for conservative and socialist voters when the pendulum swings a little too far, or the jerk at the top is thought to be inadequate in some way.

I am still regulary astonished that some people I view as generally similar to myself hold quite different political opinions. I guess personal experience in some small way influences how we view such things. Others that I would catogorise as different (locality, employement type, income group, education etc). would state exactly what I was thinking or would largely agree with what I said.

Bizarre

Heartfeltdawn

ESBlonde said:

I think the Lib Dem party is a bunch of well meaning people who have a party that becomes a refuge for conservative and socialist voters when the pendulum swings a little too far, or the jerk at the top is thought to be inadequate in some way.

The Liberal Democrats should reform, rebrand, and have proportional representation as the central strut of their party manifesto. In the 1983 election, the SDP-Liberal Alliance came third with 25% of the vote: Labour were second with 27%. Labour took 209 seats: the Alliance took 23. Put a fairer democratic system as the central pin and then they might get somewhere. 

blueskunk

Corbyns the best of a bad bunch.

Fuck them Eton pig fuckers.

chillidoggy

lloyd said:

terada said:

lloyd said:

The country as it is, costs more money to run than we pull in, the politicians trying to get into power have to lie about how they'd make it so much better by doing x, y, z, rather than a. b, c, the politicians in power have to lie about the lies they told to get into power and also have to point out the oppositions lies, while lying about what they are doing to make the country 'great again'

It's all bollocks and we argue over who is best and who didn't minimise tax, who didn't claim too many expenses, who didn't fuck their secretary etc, which is daft as all parties have skeletons in the closet.

Their hands are pretty much tied as to what they can do so they basically move a bit of spending about according to their leanings.

I'd be in favour of a rotational system where each main party has a few years in power then they pass the baton on, throw in some coalition and do away with the adversarial nature of the whole thing, which does nobody any favours and takes away time and money from what the Government is there to do-run the country.

This makes a lot of sense to me, but I don't think anyone can really put into place any real change within a paltry 4 year period. It'd be a struggle even over 8.

Moreover, when the culture of politics is more about hating the opposition ipso facto rather than actually having a sensible thoughtful opinion/debate, all you'd end up with is subsequent governments undoing the pervious governments' work. The country would be chasing its tail.

A change in culture might be the answer, but how the hell could that actually be achieved?!

How much do things actually change under different Governments though? I have noticed next to fuck all difference since turning 18 about 16 years ago. 

I have noticed zero change in anything between the two parties running the country, the big things that have affected us in the last 15 years are:

War on terror-Labour and Tory would have taken the same decision-possibly they'd have done it differently to Blair, but, we'd have invaded Iraq and Afghanistan regardless.

Financial crisis-Global financial meltdown the fault of no one party, Government bail out the banks, as would any political party.

Fox hunting-hardly a major deal but ok, tories in and it's probably stays legal for a bit more but HOL and public pressure makes it illegal a few years later.

EU exit-this is possibly the one that is played out differently between parties, however no one party have got the balls to go either way so pressure from within or pressure from the public would probably force some kind of referendum anyway.

The main problem for me with politics is that it's so adversarial, it's you against them, there's winners and losers. It's evident in this thread. I liken it to people excusing their footballer player for diving then cheering their own when he dives for a penalty. It's stupid. 

A roomful of independents would be best, how anyone can commit to a party is beyond me, my views are too fluid on a range of issues.

Wiz'd.

What really changes? Not much on a day-to-day basis And I can't call myself a right or left-winger because I don't agree with all their respective policies. Apart from actively disliking the majority of politicians, I don't HATE any of them. Actually, I don't hate anyone, that's too strong a word.

ESBlonde

One of the bains of elected politicians lives is the civil service. If you remember 'Yes Minister' there was more than a grain of truth in the fact that the civil service fought for less change, while ministers who are in effect transitory fought for radical change to make a stamp on history or whatever.

Reading some of the above posts almost makes a case for unelected specialists to influence law making (I think we call it the house of Lords). The only time the 'house' seems to come together is when we do a bit of sabre rattling at some bad guys in foreign parts.

MrBump

Heartfeltdawn said:

ESBlonde said:

I think the Lib Dem party is a bunch of well meaning people who have a party that becomes a refuge for conservative and socialist voters when the pendulum swings a little too far, or the jerk at the top is thought to be inadequate in some way.

The Liberal Democrats should reform, rebrand, and have proportional representation as the central strut of their party manifesto. In the 1983 election, the SDP-Liberal Alliance came third with 25% of the vote: Labour were second with 27%. Labour took 209 seats: the Alliance took 23. Put a fairer democratic system as the central pin and then they might get somewhere. 

Not sure about the rebranding bit - but I think you're 100% right on the voting reform issue.  I'm still staggered how little the general population seems to be bothered by this...

ESBlonde

I'm not so sure that the proportional representation argument works in regard to the Lib Dem vote. It takes no account of tactical votes and it's easy to vote for a good guy with no chance of power to keep out a trouble maker, but you might not be so keen if the bugger might tell you you can't cut your hendge on a thursday.

Heartfeltdawn

chillidoggy said:How much do things actually change under different Governments though? I have noticed next to fuck all difference since turning 18 about 16 years ago. 

Very little. If you take something like education, generally an area politicians love to dabble in, there's a very continuous line drawn. Academies, tuition fees, greater private sector involvement.. there's not much difference between the educational policies of the big two from the start of the 1990s to the last election. 

That sense of 'all politicians are the same' has come along at the same time as the social media rise. Now political groups don't have to depend on a wealthy newspaper benefactor or TV mogul helping them. They can reach the electorate on Facebook etc for free and it's working. This is why some of the smaller groups like the Greens and UKIP have shown rises in the polls along with Trump in the GOP nomination race. 

MrBump said:

Not sure about the rebranding bit - but I think you're 100% right on the voting reform issue.  I'm still staggered how little the general population seems to be bothered by this...

The rebranding exercise was suggested last year by Farron himself. Since then, close to bugger all has happened. 

Sometimes the comments section of an article says a great deal more than the article itself. So it is in this case, an article from Liberal Democrat Voice. There's some very nonplussed voices out there who are Lib Dems. If they're sounding that way, then it's going to be very hard for the party to do anything at all. 

If they focus on voting reform, then it gives them a major selling point. UKIP have been firmly behind voting reforms in at least the last three GE manifesto documents; one of Farage's major mistakes in 2015 was to not trumpet their desire for electoral reform. If the Liberal Democrats tale up this position then you might well have a chance of getting a few more arses in Parliament. 

Heartfeltdawn

ESBlonde said:

I'm not so sure that the proportional representation argument works in regard to the Lib Dem vote. It takes no account of tactical votes and it's easy to vote for a good guy with no chance of power to keep out a trouble maker, but you might not be so keen if the bugger might tell you you can't cut your hendge on a thursday.

So the Lib Dems become the party of regulated hedge cutting and leave the Tories and Labour to fight about unregulated hedge funds. Simple

skankdelvar

Heartfeltdawn said:

With the Liberals, they don't know what branch of society they can attract. They can't go for the Tories because they've already been burnt by that association. A 'Tory lite' approach isn't going to help anyone. The SJW world is pretty split between Corbyn Labour, the Greens, and some of those peculiar groups featuring people with dreadlocks and dogs on bits of string. The old West Country support really got a kicking in 2015 and places like Bristol which should be a natural Lib Dem home is alien to them. Wales and Scotland are out as bases to achieve greater power. They can't go for the students because they fucked that market up the arse in 2010. The atheists won't go for Farron as he's religious and has links to Christian Action Research and Education and it's unlikely he'll ever be someone to go all out campaigning for LGBT rights. 

So who the hell does that leave? 

An incisive summary of the Lib-Dems' position. 

Nice work, Sir.

Fretwired

Lib Dems. Bin Tim nice but dim. Look at the emerging narrative about their time in coalition with the Tories - many people see the previous coalition government as better than the current one. If I were a Lib Dem spokesperson I would say that was down to the moderating influence of the Lib Dems. Yes promises were broken but people are now getting to see what the Tories are like with their hands on power. By 2020 I can see the electorate being fed up and very worried. Labour are unelectable in Scotland and many parts of England so I can see there being a coalition government. Were I the Lib Dems this is what I would be working towards - being coalition partners.

For example, the Lib Dems maybe in favour of the EU (like Cameron) and of free enterprise, but in coalition with the Tories they would defend the NHS and education. People who like some Tory polices but are worried about the NHS could vote Lib Dem. This is simplistic example to make a point but this is what happens in other countries like Germany. We may have to get use to coalitions and tactical voting.

UnclePsychosis

What happened to the Lib Dems makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Tony Blair and New Labour were never punished by the electorate for introducing tuition fees, and the Conservatives were never punished by the electorate for maintaining them.  

So we're left with the idea that the Lib Dems get punished for enabling horrible Tory policies...except the Conservative vote actually increased. WTF?

It almost makes sense if you think the backlash was for saying they'll do one thing and actually doing another, except every single government in living memory has backtracked on its manifesto pledges and not been wiped out for doing so.

ICBM

Heartfeltdawn said:

The Liberal Democrats should reform, rebrand, and have proportional representation as the central strut of their party manifesto.

They did, and then unfortunately were willing to compromise on that very central issue in order to get into power with the Tories, and allowed Cameron to walk all over them with a rigged referendum giving a choice between a system people didn't want and one they wanted even less, hence kicking it into the long grass for at least a generation.

As well as compromising on a lot of other things which they shouldn't have and didn't need to. Which is why many of us who supported them for many years or even decades will have great reluctance to ever trust them again. That and the fact that I don't like Farron, and think he would be even more useless than Clegg.

MrBump said:

Not sure about the rebranding bit - but I think you're 100% right on the voting reform issue.  I'm still staggered how little the general population seems to be bothered by this...

I find it very worrying that the majority of people seem to not understand that most governments in this country do not have a true democratic mandate. The current "majority" Tory government was voted in by only 37% of even the electorate who did vote. Dictatorship by the largest active minority, basically.

Heartfeltdawn

ICBM said:

They did, and then unfortunately were willing to compromise on that very central issue in order to get into power with the Tories, and allowed Cameron to walk all over them with a rigged referendum giving a choice between a system people didn't want and one they wanted even less, hence kicking it into the long grass for at least a generation.

When I call for PR as a central issue, it means one that is not negotiable, one that stands at all times. Not something that can be watered down if there is the chance of coalition. 

UnclePsychosis said:

What happened to the Lib Dems makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Tony Blair and New Labour were never punished by the electorate for introducing tuition fees, and the Conservatives were never punished by the electorate for maintaining them.  

So we're left with the idea that the Lib Dems get punished for enabling horrible Tory policies...except the Conservative vote actually increased. WTF?

It almost makes sense if you think the backlash was for saying they'll do one thing and actually doing another, except every single government in living memory has backtracked on its manifesto pledges and not been wiped out for doing so.

Because the Libs were seen as the decent party. They were the party who stayed with their principles and beliefs and accepted that staying with these beliefs meant bugger all chance of power. Come the coalition, even diehard supporters felt the party had shat on its principles in exchange for some nice lunches and the odd PMQ session with a yellow-tinged man representing the government. 

ICBM

Heartfeltdawn said:

When I call for PR as a central issue, it means one that is not negotiable, one that stands at all times. Not something that can be watered down if there is the chance of coalition.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what they said it was, and then watered it down after they'd formed the coalition and allowed Cameron to dictate the alternative system with barely a whisper of protest. They did far more harm to electoral reform than not having the referendum at all.