Home » Posts tagged 'LibDems'
Tag Archives: LibDems
Andrew Mitchell and Nick Clegg may be 'sorry', but not as sorry as we are
Nick Clegg’s convoluted description of what he is apologising for is reminiscent of a criminal who is not particularly regretful about the actual offence, but rather that he has been caught red-handed. Rather than drawing a line under the pledges debacle, which could see its ultimate denouement with Julian Huppert losing his Varsity seat in Cambridge, it has triggered an unpredicted sense of hostility to the Liberal Democrat Party. Whilst it is a valid criticism that there is no apology which Nick Clegg could give, which could be accepted by the majority of Labour voters, a number of people sincerely ask whether Nick Clegg shows any remorse at being guilty of ultimately enacting the privatisation of the NHS, or signing the ‘death warrant’ for thousands of law centres and similar establishments around the country.
The way in which the Coalition makes decisions, by ‘diktat’, shows no shame. Michael Gove has ploughed ahead with his E-Bacc system, albeit rooted in a deep-seated sense of dissatisfaction with how private providers have not delivered competition but profit in the GCSE examining system. However, the way in which he has done this is distasteful, as he has not engaged with the teachers or headteachers unions. Likewise, the Conservative Government, whilst having a favourable relationship with Circle, Virgin and Serco, have not been able to engage the goodwill of the Royal College of Practitioners, making the notion that GPs are leading the recovery an unmitigated joke. Nick Clegg has become a laughing stock, with LibDem strategists apparently behind-the-scenes questioning his judgement over providing a bare-faced apology with such bare-faced cheek.
That his party will be annihilated in 2015 is not in any question, but he seems to have virtually no insight into the demise of his party. His activists have not experienced a crisis of insight yet, which means that they are currently delusional in their party conference in Brighton. The feeling that Nick Clegg will always look after himself, and look after his chauffeur-driven cars, has always pervaded the sense of business of this government. The “out-of-touch” label previously attached to the Conservatives still promises to do much damage to the Coalition in general, more so than the economy. George Osborne is not particularly sorry for wilfully denying a Keynesian stimulus, thus reversing the economy from growth to recession in a space of about two years. He has not said sorry for this, and nor will he. He has not said sorry for the tax cut benefit which has been of benefit to a substantial number of his core supporters, and nor will he. He has not said sorry for the borrowing requirement, in the face of rampant corporate tax avoidance of a much bigger magnitude, and nor he will he. However, George Osborne is not alone in his lack of apology. Iain Duncan-Smith has not apologised for the fact that the disabled citizens of the UK feel demonised and victimised by this Government, feeling that the new welfare reform mechanisms will be unfair. It has been warned that the administration of the ‘universal credit’ and ‘personal independent payment’ will be a disaster, and, whilst the ATOS contract was initially awarded under Labour, nobody appears to be accountable over the problems which have led to an unusually high rate of successful appeals on benefits decisions. Nick Buckles appears to be ‘sorry’, but does not wish to return the money that G4s received for the Olympics to the taxpayer.
Chief Whip, Andrew Mitchell, at least has said ‘sorry’. After police prevented him from leaving the main Downing Street gate on his bike on Wednesday, the cabinet minister reportedly launched into a class-based rant against the officers. According to the Sun, he demanded: “Open this gate, I’m the Chief Whip. I’m telling you — I’m the Chief Whip and I’m coming through these gates.” When officers refused to do so, he allegedly responded:
Best you learn your fucking place. You don’t run this fucking government.
You’re fucking plebs.
It is the alleged use of the pejorative “plebs”, denoting those of a lower order, that is toxic for Mitchell and the Tory-led government. Like Mitt Romney’s attack on “the 47%“, it’s brilliantly designed to confirm the view that this is a government of the wealthy for the wealthy. Mitchell has already apologised for the altercation, although he denied using the language ascribed to him by the Sun. In a statement he said: “On Wednesday night I attempted to leave Downing Street via the main gate, something I have been allowed to do many times before. As well as the deep-seated ‘out-of-touch’ issue above, however, there is also a pervasive theme from the Hunt handling of Hackgate; Gategate like Huntgate reveals an element of two-facedness, where the Tories appear to tell the public one another and act behind-the-scenes in a completely different manner. Trust is of course something which voters concern; apparently both parties are not trusted on the economy, despite the economic incompetence of the Tories being well evidenced. The Conservatives have been able to maintain their fraudulent lie that Brown’s government overspent recklessly because Sir Mervyn King, outgoing Governor of the Bank of England, has never explained why such a big stimulus was necessary to prevent the global economic crash in the UK turning into an outright depression, and the state broadcaster, the BBC, somehow became complicit in producing a distorted narrative for the general public. The social media, however, have been able to undermine this fraudulent lie, however, in recent times.
Andrew Mitchell and Nick Clegg may be sorry, but not as sorry as we are. Due to the nature of fixed term governments, the incompetent Coalition will not be thrown out until May 8th 2015. Instead of producing solid government in a time of uncertainty, they have provided disunity exacerbating massively a sense of uncertainty. If the economy continues to go downhill (and a Keynesian stimulus would not have effect for several years now), with poor GDP output and continued recession for after 2015, it is very plausible that the UK will lose in fact its coveted ‘credit rating’. The economy is ‘broken’, with shareholders reaping massive dividends from imperfect privatised markets, and successive Governments have done everything they can to undermine the employment rights of workers and employees. Labour of course has a chance to remedy this on behalf of its ‘core vote’, and the critical next step will be the policy review. If Ed Miliband is unable to produce a coherent direction for Labour soon, the 2015 election, if it delivers a Conservative majority, will see the E-Bacc inflicted on the UK for certain, and the first ever mandate for the NHS privatisation. At that time, all the Liberal Democrat carping about “that illegal war” will simply be a painful memory, as indeed their party will also be a painful memory for many on the left.
Lib Dem voice readers clearly feel that Nick Clegg has betrayed them
A post Opinion: Clegg has not betrayed us! caught my eye this evening, not really for a statement, which I simply didn’t understand
Clegg, along with other Liberal Democrats, signed a pledge before the election. Before the coalition was formed, and before there was any possibility that he might be in a position to even govern. But this was a pledge of political policy, not of political principle.
but these comments below.
Reader 8 is the most challenging, because it represents a discussed dilemma for the grassroots Liberal Democrat leadership: their party, or their leader?
Reader 1
This really is desperate.
The Libdems attacked Labour for years for broken pledges and for betraying their values, and now the ‘coalition’ is used as an excuse to do the same.
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if the Tories had gained power, without the Liberal Democrats to temper them?”
No, the question should perhaps be this: “Should Libdems just stop writing up a manifesto?”
If we are in a new political era where coalition governments are more likely, and it’s also obvious that the possibility of the Libdems governing independently is quite low, then there’s no point making any pledges at all. Because they seem to be junked at the first opportunity…. and then we get articles like this asking people to be pragmatic… just as Labour did for years.
Reader 2
I’m sorry, but these are weasel words – as a Liberal Democrat voter I feel deeply let down and betrayed by Nick Clegg. not just on tuition fees but on many other issues, the latest to receive publicity being animal welfare, wildlife and the environment (see http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/nature/the-great-animal-rights-betrayal-2132827.html ). On many of these issues we are seeing unfettered (‘Nasty Party’) Conservatism, despite the fact that the Conservatives did not win the election. For example, why is Nick Clegg and his fellow Lib Dems in Government not doing more to rein in the likes of the appalling Agriculture Minister Jim Paice?
Reader 3
People will not fall for this rubbish. The LibDems have already lost half their support (some polls put them on 10%). Most of their progressive supporters have fled, many to Labour. And it’s not likely they’ll be returning any time soon. The LibDems will probably now become a rather sad adjunct of the Conservatives. Maybe this is what Nick Clegg wanted all along.
Reader 4
It’s articles like these, that give the impression that LDV is now no more than just the LibDem equivalent of Pravda.
Reader 5
You misunderstand the point about the tuition fees pledge. It has nothing to do with coalition compromises and which party got how many seats. It was a personal promise by a candidate to their voters. It doesn’t matter which party won or is in coalition with which other party. Our MPs said to their voters “If I win I will do this”. The promise was not conditional on which party won, or if there was a hung parliament or not.
Those MPs who will vote in favour of increasing fees will betray those voters who believed that promise and all those of us who believed that Lib Dems stood for something better than the sordid, selfish, self-aggrandizing politics of recent years.
Clegg’s betrayal is that he is going to whip his MPs into breaking a promise, forcing those who stand by their principles of honesty and honour to be “rebels”.
Reader 6
If the the lib dems dont get their heads out of the sand you will be wiped out,i was a lib dem voter but the more people come out with rubbish like this the less chance i will ever vote for you again,The more you try to bullshit your way out of the mess you have got into the deeper hole you are diging for your party,Please stop trying to defend the indefensible and work to bring back the party to positions and policies it had before 6th may,its not to late.
Reader 7
Laughed, I nearly prolapsed when I read this article,.
What bloody planet are some of you Libdems on.
Are you sure you wouldn’t be better suited to the monster raving lunatic party?
“And here is the basis of understanding a coalition. One must no longer think about pledges, promises, scandal and success, but instead one has to think of the hypothetical”
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if the Tories had gained power, without the Liberal Democrats to temper them?” Answer: More than likely Nick Clegg and co, would have joined the student protest march, demanding no increases to fee’s
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if Labour were still in power?” Answer: in a damn site better state than we are now
The hypothetical asks the question: “where would we be if the Liberal Democrats had won the majority in the House of Commons?” Answer: in SH!T street, Liberal Democrats have already said their policies where wrong and the Tories where right and more progressive.
Reader 8
I find it hugely significant that in the last few days some of the more extreme Cleggmanicas have started to concede that propping up a right-wing Tory government will harm our party’s long-term prospects, but they consider this a price worth paying because they believe that the hollowing out of the public sector and hammering of the poor will ultimately be good for the country. Clearly, some Cleggmaniacs at least are perfectly prepared to sacrifice our party for the “coalition”, and I find their honesty in admitting it admirable.
What of Clegg? Does Clegg really care about this party, or did he join it and become its leader with the intention of destroying it? Clegg was a Tory when he was a student. His political views then were broadly Thatcherite, as they are today, but he couldn’t stomach the Tory Party’s fetishistic antipathy towards the European Union, so he joined the Liberal Democrats and only a short while later got himself elected to the European Parliament. Unlike most successful Liberal Democrat politicians, Clegg has never had to get his hands dirty. He has never been a councillor, he has never worked a ward, let alone a constituency. The guy has been handed everything on a plate. Why?
I, and others, warned that making Clegg Leader would be a very dangerous departure. Though seemingly coming from nowhere, Clegg was being hyped by the media as the “obvious” candidate to lead the Liberal Democrats (as Matthew Huntbach puts it). We were told that he was an oustandingly wonderful man, and that if we chose him, he would transform the party’s prospects in weeks rather than months. His right-wing views and lack of experience on the ground were known to many, if not most, party members. But still they were suborned into electing him, if only by 500 votes. Such is the power of the media.
The party was bounced into the “coalition” at breakneck speed by a catalogue of deceits: that Cameron would call a second general election and win an overall majority; that bond traders would take fright and send the economy into freefall; that Liberal Democrats would have real influence; that we would get some kind of PR. All these are now exposed as empty shams, and the disaster for the party grows starker by the day, but still there are Liberal Democrats who delude themselves into believing that the party should continue to prop up Cameron’s Tory government and that Clegg has not betrayed us.
I maintain that Clegg was propelled into the leadership by the media in order to realign the right. His long-term objective, I believe, is to merge the Liberal Democrats with the bulk of the Tory party to create an amorphous “super-party” of the centre right; a party that is pro-business and pro-American, but lacks the anti-EU fetishism and social authoritarianism of the Tory right. Such a party, supported by almost all the media outlets, could stay in power for generations, to the unimaginable benefit of the UK mega-rich, and the US military-industrial complex and billionaire families – the people who imposed Blair-Mandelson on the Labour Party and Cameron-Gove on the Tories.
Are we, as Liberal Democrats, going to sit back and let Clegg do this? Or do we get up off our knees and fight for our party?
Votes at 16 – do you see its importance?
The Liberal Democrats did a sudden U-turn on this tonight, but Stella Creasy MP for Walthamstow managed to get several MPs to attend the vote in the House of Commons by tweeting about it. The support for lowering the voting age has been steadily growing in the UK, and has become a reality in many parts of the British Isles. In the Channel Islands, 16 and 17 year olds already enjoy the vote and although it is a reserved matter the ruling party in Scotland, the SNP, recently passed a policy motion in support of the rights of 16 year olds to vote.
There are also international precedents with some German Lãnder reducing the voting age to 16 for local and regional elections some years ago. Last year Austria reduced the voting age to 16 for all public elections. There are active Votes at 16 cam- paigns across Europe, and it has been adopted by the European Youth Parliament. There are substantial moves afoot for radical reform of the electoral system, not least the big AV vote. Do you think that votes at 16 is a good idea, in a week that mooted lowering the age of sexual consent to 14?
Oh, by the way, if someone complains about the use of the Ishihara plate because it diagnoses colour blindness, may I say in my defence my father is colour-blind, and that this picture is to make the point whether ‘votes at 16′ makes a perceivable difference.
Dr Shibley Rahman is a research physician and research lawyer by training.
Queen’s Scholar, BA (1st.), MA, MB, BChir, PhD, MRCP(UK), LLB(Hons.), FRSA
Director of Law and Medicine Limited
Member of the Fabian Society and Associate of the Institute of Directors
