1. Jonathan Calder of Liberal England welcomes the Cameron approach to a coalition.
2. Mark Pack questions whether David Cameron's words are enough.
3. Stephen Tall is less than impressed.
4. Norfolk Blogger has a right old go at Norwich Greens. Even complains about their dodgy barcharts!
5. Chris White saw the bursting of the bubble coming.
6. Cicero's Songs ponders the imminent death of FPTP.
7. Eric Avebury considers the election result.
8. Liberal Burblings discusses his election injuries.
9. A Lanson Boy on the voters who couldn't vote.
10. Bracknell Blog on a difficult weekend.
11. Mark Reckons thinks Gordon Brown is a thing of the past.
12. Love and Liberty on deal or no deal.
17 comments:
Iain, its not their bar charts. Its that they criticise our bar charts, claim their bar charts are more accurate, then when they fail, they use the figures from out bar charts to show that their results was not actually so bad, whilst still criticising our barcharts to the press.
Sorry. A very long sentences there.
An ICM survey says that 48 per cent back PR.
Presumably believers in PR will now agree that we do not have it.
BTW
Given that Brown could not get on with his own cabinet or his own subordinates - or indeed his own voters, can we really expect him to govern with Clegg etc??
What is the point of being a Liberal Democrat?
If they believe in being "Progressive" and "Just" and "Fair" (all code words for egalitarianism) they should support the Labour Party.
If they believe in a Free Society (which is to say if they believe in a smaller State) then they should support the Conservatives.
When they are interviewed they invariably start by being (laughably) sanctimonious, and end by being shown up to be (pathetically) lightweight.
I saw brief clips of Ashdown, Kennedy, and Campbell, going to the Lib Dem meeting today and they just seem to me to be bitter old men.
The supporters of PR chanting and jeering outside the meeting had all the maturity of a student union debating Cuba. They might as well held up "We Hate Tories" placards.
I think the chances of this lot putting their country before themselves is very remote. The "We Hate the Tories" crowd even gave the impression they rather looked forward to there being an economic collapse.
The Conservatives should let them form an alliance with the Labour Party. At the next election the swing will be to the Conservatives and the Labour Party and their Liberal Democrat allies will be out of power for a generation.
I think that Jonathan Calder underestimates the hand that the LibDems have to play.
I have posted a Note of my own on Facebook (my Page is open, so anyone can read it - http://tinyurl.com/23onqfj), in which I argue that Cameron needs the LibDems every bit as much as they need him.
The Tories are about to split, one way or the other. If Cameron comes away from this Election empty-handed, Ashcroft et al are waiting to rip him apart - http://tinyurl.com/2e86gyy.
The only future for Cameroons is in a deal with the LibDems, which will almost certainly see Ashcroft et all leave (for UKIP?).
Basically, the Party splits with or without a deal. But, without a deal, Cameron is finished. Er. Which box would you open?
With that reality accepted, Cameron is over a barrel. The LibDems can not only demand PR, they can ask for it to be delivered by Osborne in an Easter Bunny costume...
Another thing I cannot help noticing is that Liberal Democrats seem to have absolutely no understanding of the Conservative Party. Take Geff Gilson for example. He thinks the Conservative Party is about to split!
They seem to live in fetid narcissistic ego bubbles. In this respect they are about as different from the Labour Party as the People's Front of Judeah is from the People's Judean Front.
I am a Lib Dem because I believe that a government should not try to engineer "equality of outcome" but instead put in place a framework for "equality of opportunity".
The Lib Dem manifesto has been created with input from left and right wing people and there is room for improvement. It is not statist but is not totally 'smaller state'.
I am a Lib Dem because I want a political party that does not have spasms about allowing women abortions or gay equality. A party that never ever believed in something like Section 28 or has candidates that prayed for the demons of homosexuality to be exercised.
I am a Lib Dem because I believe in a considered approach to crime and immigration (I actually want a country where crime and immigration are not part of the same policy debate).
I am an organge-book Lib Dem but I am not a Tory.
I saw these two comments on the Liberal Vision blog today:
"Who says the voters know what the common good happens to be? Just because voters vote for etc does not make etc a good thing."
and:
"A political party always has to think in its own interests. Otherwise it shouldn’t be a political party, it should be a think tank."
I found both statements shocking, more so because they have both gone unchallenged.
@Southsea Expat:
Those comments where amongst many suspect supplied by 'Ziggy' almost all of which have challenged.
The discourse at Lib Dem Vision can be variable but I think that you will find Ziggy not have a representative view.
Thank you Douglas for your response.
There is no difference however between your position (being opposed to the State attempting to enforce equality of outcome but being in favour of the State having a role seeking to facilitate equality of opportunity) and the policies that are being advocated by the Conservative Party.
Neither am I aware that the Conservative Party is seeking to make abortion or homosexuality illegal.
No doubt if you look hard enough you can find a Conservative MP who thinks that abortion and homosexuality is a sin (I am sure you can also find them in the Liberal Democrats) but in a free society (and it is after all politics we are talking about) they are entitled to their view.
You are quite right that quarter of a century ago a Conservative government sought to prevent schools from "promoting" homosexuality in schools. But although as Nigel Lawson pointed out at the time "you either are or or not" and therefore legislation against the promotion of homosexuality to children is misguided, I do not find the people who supported this legislation (given the "do what you want and let other people sort out the consequences" sermonising of the amoral Left) to be wicked, given the quite understandable desire to protect children from predatory adults.
I am sure all sensible people want a considered approach to crime and immigration (all except the nihilistic Left of course who are in favour of unlimited immigration and opposition of law enforcement precisely because it will facilitate social collapse) and so to imply that only the Liberal Democrats have a considered approach to these matters is sanctimonious in the extreme.
I am told that the Liberal Democrats have "orange book" supporters who are liberals, and since I am a liberal (albeit a liberal conservative) myself I am of course delighted. As for why they (and you) are doing in the Liberal Democrat Party however I am no clearer.
Iain, brave of you to dive in to the LibDem murk on our behalf.
Although there are some sensible and considered views expressed, there are far too many raving loons there for my being able to see any difference between them and Labour, thinking not with a head but a bile duct.
Poor UK, poor David Cameron.
UNLESS Clegg and his top guys ARE different from the ranters on these blogs.
Alan Douglas
Iain are you feeling ok. After claims that your to Lib Dem by the BBC you link to everyone. Cheers
Wild, thanks for your response.
You are right that Cameron has moved his party to a position that is much more appealing to me.
You are right that the Conservatives are not going to make homosexuality illegal but I dont share your confidence about abortion (although given the lack of a commanding majority that probably wont happen).
The problem is when you get people like Nadine Dorries calling Evan Harris Dr Death and crowing about his defeat, the idea of being in the same party as her makes my skin crawl. You are right that she is entitled to that view so I am with a party that would quickly and loudly disagree with views such as hers.
Very few homosexuals (no more than the rest of the population) are predatory on children and therefore the idea that it is homosexual that children need protected from is as wrong now as it was then.
There is still a problem regarding the right and homosexuality. Chris Grayling may or may not have believed what he was saying about B&B owners but what he said was designed to appeal to a right wing audience. Again, people can be against homosexuality if they want but I am with a party that would quickly and loudly disagree with views such as his/theirs. Oh, and have you seen some of the Conservatives friends in Europe? Accusations of anti-Semitism may be argued (as Iain has done on his blog) but their anti-homosexual stance is clear and unambiguous.
I am sorry, I did not wish to appear sanctimonious. Cameron has voiced far more considered opinions on crime and the causes of crime (family breakdown, broken society etc.) but I don't know how far the rest of the party actually believes him about things like rehabilitation being more effective than punishment.
I am Scottish and my organisation is working with the Scottish Government on the long-term impact of an ageing population. And we need immigration (hence I support the Lib Dem regional approach - it works in Australia).
By 2033 the population of older people will be so old and needing care that every school leaver will need to start work in the care of older people sector. Even now there are more pensioners than 0-19 year olds in Scotland. I may be being stupid but I believe immigration is a useful way to solve this problem of an ageing population.
I am an orange-booker who joined the Lib Dems because I was against the war in Iraq. Economically I face rightwards and socially I face very leftwards. Thus the party I feel most at home in is the Lib Dems.
Wild, thanks for your response.
You are right that Cameron has moved his party to a position that is much more appealing to me.
You are right that the Conservatives are not going to make homosexuality illegal but I dont share your confidence about abortion (although given the lack of a commanding majority that probably wont happen).
The problem is when you get people like Nadine Dorries calling Evan Harris Dr Death and crowing about his defeat, the idea of being in the same party as her makes my skin crawl. You are right that she is entitled to that view so I am with a party that would quickly and loudly disagree with views such as hers.
Very few homosexuals (no more than the rest of the population) are predatory on children and therefore the idea that it is homosexual that children need protected from is as wrong now as it was then.
There is still a problem regarding the right and homosexuality. Chris Grayling may or may not have believed what he was saying about B&B owners but what he said was designed to appeal to a right wing audience. Again, people can be against homosexuality if they want but I am with a party that would quickly and loudly disagree with views such as his/theirs. Oh, and have you seen some of the Conservatives friends in Europe? Accusations of anti-Semitism may be argued (as Iain has done on his blog) but their anti-homosexual stance is clear and unambiguous.
I am sorry, I did not wish to appear sanctimonious. Cameron has voiced far more considered opinions on crime and the causes of crime (family breakdown, broken society etc.) but I don't know how far the rest of the party actually believes him about things like rehabilitation being more effective than punishment.
I am Scottish and my organisation is working with the Scottish Government on the long-term impact of an ageing population. And we need immigration (hence I support the Lib Dem regional approach - it works in Australia).
By 2033 the population of older people will be so old and needing care that every school leaver will need to start work in the care of older people sector. Even now there are more pensioners than 0-19 year olds in Scotland. I may be being stupid but I believe immigration is a useful way to solve this problem of an ageing population.
I am an orange-booker who joined the Lib Dems because I was against the war in Iraq. Economically I face rightwards and socially I face very leftwards. Thus the party I feel most at home in is the Lib Dems.
"when you get people like Nadine Dorries calling Evan Harris Dr Death, and crowing about his defeat, the idea of being in the same party as her makes my skin crawl....so I am with a party that would quickly and loudly disagree with views such as hers."
I take it you are talking about the way your party dealt with the now ex-Liberal Democrat MP David Alton. It seems that he did not find the Liberal Party a party that could tolerate much diversity of opinion. The Conservative Party of course is not advocating making abortion illegal, but do not let facts get in the way of your intolerance.
Thanks for correcting my view that all homosexuals are paedophiles. Here was me thinking that Iain Dale was a kiddy fiddler. Although it is not up to me to defend (ancient) arguments I do not even agree with, your inability to even understand them tells me more about your intolerance than you realise.
"Chris Grayling may or may not have believed what he was saying about B&B owners but...I am with a party that would quickly and loudly disagree with [such] views"
What a lot of nonsense. He was simply expressing a view that Christian B & B owners with strong religiously grounded views about homosexuality should not have to accept homosexual couples. Again it is not party policy, and as you know full well it is not going to be, but (although I do not agree with him) it is entirely reasonable. You Liberals do not seem to have the remotest conception of what a free society looks like do you.
"Oh, and have you seen some of the Conservatives friends in Europe? Accusations of anti-Semitism may be argued (as Iain has done on his blog) but their anti-homosexual stance is clear and unambiguous."
I am guessing that is because they are Catholics. There seems to be a theme developing here! As I understand it orthodox Catholics are also opposed to abortion.
Is your accusation that the Conservatives Party is anti-Semitic? I think you will find that most "Friends of Israel" in the UK parliament are in the Conservative Party. Indeed a relatively high proportion of Conservative cabinet ministers over the years have been Jewish.
I notice that you are pre-judging that rehabilitation is more effective than punishment. It depends on the punishment, and the rehabilitation. Again, a lot of hand waving indicating nothing but your (obviously deeply engrained) prejudices.
"[W]e [Scotland] need immigration (hence I support the Lib Dem regional approach - it works in Australia)."
Comparing the UK to Australia is absurd.
"I may be being stupid but I believe immigration is a useful way to solve this problem of an ageing population."
It depends on the immigration - it is all in the detail.
"I joined the Lib Dems because I was against the war in Iraq."
Fair enough. The jury is still out on that one.
"Economically I face rightwards and socially I face very leftwards. Thus the party I feel most at home in is the Lib Dems."
Current Liberal Democrat economic policy is hardly "rightwards" - which is not surprising since Vince Cable was a Labour councillor in Scotland.
Gee Wild I tried to play nice and be constructive. I even started out by saying that David Cameron has made his party appealing to me. As a person growing up in an anti-Thatcher community you have to believe how much more tolerant of the Tories I have become.
I am not intolerant and I allow people to have their point of view. If I disagree with their point of view I argue against it. And you are correct, the economic policy (and some aspects of social service delivery) are not as market driven as I would want them.
You said "I do not find the people who supported this legislation (given the "do what you want and let other people sort out the consequences" sermonising of the amoral Left) to be wicked, given the quite understandable desire to protect children from predatory adults."
You said predatory adults and children in the context of homosexuality, not me. You are right, I dont understand how people, even then, made that link.
Erm, no I did not call the Conservatives anti-semite.
I shall leave that there before even more toys are thrown.
"As a person growing up in an anti-Thatcher community you have to believe how much more tolerant of the Tories I have become."
I believe you. Do you expect me to give you a medal?
"I am not intolerant"
You sound pretty intolerant (for example of Christian beliefs) to me.
"[Y]ou are correct, the economic policy (and some aspects of social service delivery) are not as market driven as I would want them."
Fair enough.
"You said predatory adults and children in the context of homosexuality, not me. You are right, I dont understand how people, even then, made that link."
Actually the argument is not hard to follow. But since you are dragging up arguments from a quarter of a century ago I feel no need to set them out for you. I simply view your inability to understand them as further evidence of your intolerance.
"Erm, no I did not call the Conservatives anti-semite."
Then why mention (as a criticism) that you believe that one of the parties with which the Conservatives Party is grouped in the European parliament is anti-semitic?
"I shall leave that there before even more toys are thrown"
The toys are coming from your direction, I am simply batting them back.
Hi Doug,
If possible, could you drop me a quick e-mail to julian.harris AT liberal-vision DOT org ?
Many thanks.
Post a Comment