Home » Posts tagged 'Liberal Democrat'
Tag Archives: Liberal Democrat
The LibDems' USP is, apparently, "a fair society and a strong economy". Their party name is a misnomer, but the USP is clearly fraudulent.
If you tell a big one, tell a big one!
One lie leads to another!
Choose your adage, and run with it. At two separate points, I thought of these sayings this weekend. The first time was when Nick Clegg was interviewed by Sophie Raworth about various issues, including the economy. Clegg wasted no time in criticising the previous Labour administration in the running of the economy. The second time was when I finally read the article in the Independent about David Laws writing the next Liberal Democrat manifesto of 2015.
David Laws and Nick Clegg believe that the the unique selling proposition (USP) of the Liberal Democrats is “a fair society and a strong economy”.
Let us take first the economy because of the famous saying, “It’s the economy stupid”. It is a fact that if you look at the actual figures Labour spending prior to the economy was in fact comparable to Ken Clarke and Norman Lamont. George Osborne went on record to say that he would match at least the spending plans of Labour, and possibly exceed them, in the last government. There was a £1tn bailout in the UK economy which all experts concede was due to the emergency measure of recapitalising the bank.
The argument for doing this massive bailout was to stop the banking system imploding. The argument runs something like follows: all banks are heavily in debt (leveraged), and therefore when one bank can’t repay its debts, the bank to which it owes its debts can’t then repay its debts, and so you then have a domino effect. Northern Rock and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a failure of the international securitised mortgages, saw the beginning of this dangerous situation. George Osborne puts a lot of store on credit ratings, ignoring the fact that Lehman Brothers had the top rating the second before it went bust.
Also, the Liberal Democrats’ economic policy has shared ownership with the Conservatives’ economic policy. They state clearly that their raison d’être of being in a Coalition is to reduce the deficit, even though the deficit has been going up due to falling tax receipts and increased levels of welfare payments. This policy, which has been criticised now by Ed Balls and the Labour Party, the head of Goldman Sachs, Prof. Stiglitz and Blanchflower, Lord Skidelsky and the trade unions, amongst others, has spectacularly failed, and the Liberal Democrats should be reminded at all opportunities about the mess they created following May 2010. They had inherited economy which was in a fragile recovery, squandered it, and for them to claim they aspire for a ‘strong economy’ is a disgusting laughable claim.
For the Liberal Democrats to have an ounce of credibility in the “damage that Labour did to the economy” argument, they must answer that one. True libertarians, it is argued, might have followed an argument akin to “creative destruction”, and allowed the banks to fail as per Iceland, a country which George Osborne praised before the Iceland economy went bust. It is argued by true libertarians that the best way to ‘cure’ the system overall is to allow the failing banks to fail, otherwise you unnecessarily give the wrong people money, and you’re in effect rewarding failure.
The Liberal Democrats are entirely silent on this matter.
The second part of the USP is no less fraudulent. The enactment of the Legal Aid and Sentencing of Offenders Act has seen law centres going out of business on the high street. Such law firms are essential for basic access-to-justice across a range of social welfare issues, not least disability and other welfare benefits, unfair dismissals and other employment disputes, immigration and housing matters, for example. In another Act, which only obtained Royal Assent because of the Liberal Democrats, the massive increase in the rôle of the private sector in running outsourced services for the NHS has become law, already leading to the marketisation and fragmentation of services offered by the NHS. This is a massive attack on the notion that the NHS is comprehensive, and even has threatened some services being “free-at-the-point-of-use”.
Disabled citizens do not feel that the LibDems have created a “fair society”. The Welfare Reform Act was steamroller-ed through Parliament and the House of Lords by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The appeals over people deemed ‘fit-to-work’ continue, as do the stories of inappropriate decisions, successful appeals, and, tragically, suicides.
The LibDems’ USP is, apparently, “a fair society and a strong economy”. Their party name is a misnomer, but the USP is clearly fraudulent. It is sick, disgusting, and needs to be scrutinised carefully in the next election campaign.
The LibDems' USP is, apparently, "a fair society and a strong economy". Their party name is a misnomer, but the USP is clearly fraudulent.
If you tell a big one, tell a big one!
One lie leads to another!
Choose your adage, and run with it. At two separate points, I thought of these sayings this weekend. The first time was when Nick Clegg was interviewed by Sophie Raworth about various issues, including the economy. Clegg wasted no time in criticising the previous Labour administration in the running of the economy. The second time was when I finally read the article in the Independent about David Laws writing the next Liberal Democrat manifesto of 2015.
David Laws and Nick Clegg believe that the the unique selling proposition (USP) of the Liberal Democrats is “a fair society and a strong economy”.
Let us take first the economy because of the famous saying, “It’s the economy stupid”. It is a fact that if you look at the actual figures Labour spending prior to the economy was in fact comparable to Ken Clarke and Norman Lamont. George Osborne went on record to say that he would match at least the spending plans of Labour, and possibly exceed them, in the last government. There was a £1tn bailout in the UK economy which all experts concede was due to the emergency measure of recapitalising the bank.
The argument for doing this massive bailout was to stop the banking system imploding. The argument runs something like follows: all banks are heavily in debt (leveraged), and therefore when one bank can’t repay its debts, the bank to which it owes its debts can’t then repay its debts, and so you then have a domino effect. Northern Rock and the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a failure of the international securitised mortgages, saw the beginning of this dangerous situation. George Osborne puts a lot of store on credit ratings, ignoring the fact that Lehman Brothers had the top rating the second before it went bust.
Also, the Liberal Democrats’ economic policy has shared ownership with the Conservatives’ economic policy. They state clearly that their raison d’être of being in a Coalition is to reduce the deficit, even though the deficit has been going up due to falling tax receipts and increased levels of welfare payments. This policy, which has been criticised now by Ed Balls and the Labour Party, the head of Goldman Sachs, Prof. Stiglitz and Blanchflower, Lord Skidelsky and the trade unions, amongst others, has spectacularly failed, and the Liberal Democrats should be reminded at all opportunities about the mess they created following May 2010. They had inherited economy which was in a fragile recovery, squandered it, and for them to claim they aspire for a ‘strong economy’ is a disgusting laughable claim.
For the Liberal Democrats to have an ounce of credibility in the “damage that Labour did to the economy” argument, they must answer that one. True libertarians, it is argued, might have followed an argument akin to “creative destruction”, and allowed the banks to fail as per Iceland, a country which George Osborne praised before the Iceland economy went bust. It is argued by true libertarians that the best way to ‘cure’ the system overall is to allow the failing banks to fail, otherwise you unnecessarily give the wrong people money, and you’re in effect rewarding failure.
The Liberal Democrats are entirely silent on this matter.
The second part of the USP is no less fraudulent. The enactment of the Legal Aid and Sentencing of Offenders Act has seen law centres going out of business on the high street. Such law firms are essential for basic access-to-justice across a range of social welfare issues, not least disability and other welfare benefits, unfair dismissals and other employment disputes, immigration and housing matters, for example. In another Act, which only obtained Royal Assent because of the Liberal Democrats, the massive increase in the rôle of the private sector in running outsourced services for the NHS has become law, already leading to the marketisation and fragmentation of services offered by the NHS. This is a massive attack on the notion that the NHS is comprehensive, and even has threatened some services being “free-at-the-point-of-use”.
Disabled citizens do not feel that the LibDems have created a “fair society”. The Welfare Reform Act was steamroller-ed through Parliament and the House of Lords by the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats. The appeals over people deemed ‘fit-to-work’ continue, as do the stories of inappropriate decisions, successful appeals, and, tragically, suicides.
The LibDems’ USP is, apparently, “a fair society and a strong economy”. Their party name is a misnomer, but the USP is clearly fraudulent. It is sick, disgusting, and needs to be scrutinised carefully in the next election campaign.
Lord Tony Greaves feels it would be hard to 'drop the Bill' without making Lansley go
It has always been this clause of the Coalition Agreement that has caused many people a lot of discomfort.
The creeping marketisation (and monetisation) of the NHS continues to cause dismay amongst senior Liberal Democrat peers, reflecting the prominent opposition by Nick Clegg in 2011. Baroness Liz Barker described on the blog ‘LibDem voice’, in 2011, that the Liberal Democrats would “continue to argue that there should be nothing in the Bill that will open up the NHS to challenge by large private healthcare companies“. The latest salvo comes from Lord Tony Greaves this evening.
The biography of Lord Tony Greaves is fascinating.
Lord Tony Greaves has been a grass-roots Liberal activist since he joined the Liberals in 1960 (at university at Oxford and at home in Wakefield, Yorkshire). He says that for the past 40 years he has been a “mainstream Grimond-era radical Liberal) and looks with amazement at left-wing friends from the 1960s who have now leap-frogged him to the distant right to cuddle down with New Labour.
He was born and lived as a young child in Bradford but transferred his political allegiances to the North West when living in Manchester many years ago. He was a leading Liberal member of Lancashire County Council for some 25 years (Liberal group leader for a time) and a local Councillor on Colne and Pendle Borough Councils over most of the last three decades of the 20th century (with a spell as leader of Pendle Council).
When he was made a life peer in the list of “working peers” in the spring of 2000 he adopted the territorial designation of Pendle, the famous Lancashire Pennine hill that overlooks much of the mill towns and moors that make up the Borough itself.
Lord Tony Greaves feels that there is a fundamental flaw at the heart of the NHS Bill.
However, Lord Greaves has just given a very sobering interview on BBC’s Westminster Hour. On some good news, he feels that there has been a lot of safeguards to be welcome. For example, the Secretary of State is directly responsible to parliament.
Andrew Lansley would like to deliver a huge increase in productivity through commercial activity. However, Lord Greaves fundamentally believes that this would lead to privatisation of the NHS, and feels that this could lead to profits being returned to the private sector. Greaves feels that the regulation of this would be extremely difficult. There is going to be a steady seepage of services through to the private sector, according to Lord Greaves.
Lord Greaves feels that ultimately there have been so many changes in the Bill that it is likely that no party is going to be satisfied with the Bill. Lord Owen threatened the Bill did not go to Report, but now it looks as if the Bill is going to be passed in a substantially different Bill. Lord Greaves is further concerned about the use of the Financial Privilege being misused, making the Lords’ attendance redundant. However, Lord Greaves feels that the amendments have taken place due to a huge amount of compromise.
Lord Tony Greaves is ultimately concerned about the fragmentation and privatisation of the Bill. A lot of medical organisations have made it clear what they want, and it is hard for the Bill to be killed, without making Lansley go.
Lisa Harding for Woking
It is not often that I write a post that transcends party political boundaries. This is an exception. I would like to give my official support to Lisa Harding for her campaign to be a local councilor in Woking. Despite my well-known concerns about national policy from all parties, I feel strongly that Lisa deserves support for the following reasons. She is the Liberal Democrat candidate there; it is irrelevant, I believe, that I support Labour at a national level.
I am sure that Lisa is fully equipped to participate in the governance and management of Woking Council. She fully understands and is sympathetic to the views of others, and so I feel very confident she would inform the ultimate policy-makers and carry out a number of vital strategic and corporate management functions to the best of her ability, given a meticulous knowledge of local and national political issues. From her communications on her blog (here), she appears most willing to respond to constituents’ enquiries and representations, fairly and impartially. She appears to keen to involve citizens at an individual level, and she would be excellent at representing the interest of local constituents. And it is an escapable fact, that despite whatever, she works relentlessly had to listen to others.
Lisa has even commented on the outgoing Councillor with respectably sincere words:
On a personal note, I was introduced to politics locally by Rosie Sharpley. Having worked on her campaign in the General Election and getting to know her and her reputation, I was constantly amazed at the amazing regard she was held in by local residents. I learned so much in all of that time, not least of all about the kind of councillor I want to be. If I can be half the councillor Rosie Sharpley was and have as much respect and affection from residents as she did, then I know I am on the right track. She will be much missed but I know that In Amanda and Phillip we have equally determined and amazing councillors who will serve Goldsworth East just as well as Rosie has done for the last 23 years. I will miss her.
Finally, I have no hesitation, judging from Lisa’s activities in Woking, that she would maintain the highest standards of conduct, serve the public interest and take decisions having regard to the interests of the whole local community. I think her sincerity in working hard for the things she believes in, most spectacularly the NHS (for example), will shine through to be a credit for Woking. This is not about the future of the Coalition. We’re stuck with that until 2015, but about electing the right candidate!
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?
