The Hung Like a Donkey General Election December 2019 Thread

[tonyh29]

14 minutes ago, desensitized43 said:

They're dangerous, right wing extremists and they're going to destroy the country for ideological and party-self-preservation reasons.

if you swap right with left there , you'd be describing the Labour party

If only we had a credible middle ground

[peterms]

23 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

No, they have made a Labour Government their priority. 

Something that is a great deal harder to form if they aim to compete in seats where they can't win but can enable a Tory victory.

 

This gets back to my point that in practical terms, in the 2010 coalition government, there was effectively no difference having a few Libdems to leaven the tories.  If they had been the party of Chrales Kennedy rather than the current ragbag of rebadged tories, it might have been different, but the recent history is there for all to see.

[NurembergVillan]

5 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

Im abstaining I think.  Let the rest of you decide our fate. 

That's the blitz spirit 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

One obvious problem for Swinson and her playmates in working with Labour is that it would involve reversing just about everything they voted through when they were the tories' little helpers... 

It would be easier for them to work with the tories since they are ideologically closer to them, and they have already given us several years demonstrating that they are entirely comfortable doing so.  Brexit is the one obvious stand-out obstacle; but their actions in making a strong play for seats where they can't win but can enable a tory victory show that's not the key issue they claim, hence the consternation among those local Libdems who really do think that stopping Brexit should be the main aim, rather than hoping for a little job in a tory government as junior minister for pies or something.

I'm not sure, even given Labour's move to the left that they are actually ideologically closer to the Tories. The tories have moved right, too. Lib Dems have stayed the same socially more Labour, economically more Tory, environmentally more Green. The LDs have been quite happy to work with Greens, Plaid, SNP etc. and vice versa. Labour doesn't want to play, because Labour is mainly wanting to get Saint Jeremy into Gov't. and doesn't want to acknowledge that their best chance is via broad coalition. They will lose seats, not gain them, overall.

33 minutes ago, peterms said:

The Libdems have made Brexit out to be the overriding policy priority for this election around which all else must be fitted (at least in their rhetoric), Labour have not.  For the Libdems, having an MP of another party who will support a second referendum rather than a hard Brexit should be a significant gain, at least if you think they are sincere in what they say about preventing this Brexit (I don't, personally).  For Labour, I imagine the difference between a Libdem and a Tory is less clear, when both support things like the bedroom tax, benefit sanctions, austerity...let's not forget that it was the Libdems who enabled all sorts of dreadful things from 2010 onwards.  In practical terms, it made no difference having Libdems rather than tories elected over those awful years.

There's much in that. Yet Labour doesn't want the election to be about Brexit in large part because they haven't got a clear position on it. Unlike the LDs and (now) the tories who have, Labour is split and they have a porridge of a plan. Better for them to shout at nasty tories and nasty Lib Dems and not bother in Scotland. They can feel all warm and virtuous then, while the tories get back in.

The only way to stop the tories getting back in is for every other central or left party to co-operate. Labour does not want to do that. The others do, though Corbyn is a real problem for the LDs and Labour can't/won't pot him now, until he's been hammered in the election, when it'll be too late.

[Sam-AVFC]

34 minutes ago, peterms said:

For the Libdems, having an MP of another party who will support a second referendum rather than a hard Brexit should be a significant gain, at least if you think they are sincere in what they say about preventing this Brexit (I don't, personally).

I do find it weird how much benefit of the doubt Jo Swinson seems to get from people. I couldn't tell you a single recent LD policy apart from the two one issue campaigns run over the last decade on tution fees and Brexit.

Every other issue I barely hear anything about so look at their voting records and find it completely unpalatable. At least DUP had the cahonas to withdraw support from the Conservatives after they were screwed, Clegg et al didn't. I'm told they were selfless staying in government to reign in the worst insticts of the Conservatives (although not sure how they would have passed controversial issues without a majority anyway) although I'm yet to see a single example of anything positive they achieved during the coalition.

I suppose they might have played a part in legalising gay marriage (big might), but then a couple of leaders after they ended up with Farron, a guy who is opposed to gay marriage, so this clearly isn't a party position.

I would be interested to hear from someone who has voted for LDs for a long time as to what they view as they key issues they win support on.

[Sam-AVFC]

@blandy I'm baffled that you say all central or left parties apart from Labour want to work together...then state that "Corbyn is a real problem for the LDs" (see: every previous Labour leader ever) which presumably stops them wanting to work together?

Out of interest, do you know who you're voting for?

Edited November 13, 2019 by Sam-AVFC

[peterms]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

I'm not sure, even given Labour's move to the left that they are actually ideologically closer to the Tories

Their voting record from 2010 amply demonstrates that they are, at least in the real world of actions rather than the world of claims and rhetoric.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, peterms said:

Their voting record from 2010 amply demonstrates that they are, at least in the real world of actions rather than the world of claims and rhetoric.

Possibly so, but as the minor party in a coalition Government you could ask argue that they acted as a (small party) break on the Tories wilder plans as much as they could. They got eaten alive for it, as well. I think they wouldn't make that 'mistake" again. either with the Tories or with Labour's madder plans. But it's by the by because Labour won't, for their own selfish reasons, co-operate.

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, Sam-AVFC said:

@blandy I'm baffled that you say all central or left parties apart from Labour want to work together...then state that "Corbyn is a real problem for the LDs" (see: every previous Labour leader ever) which presumably stops them wanting to work together?

Out of interest, do you know who you're voting for?

Over the past few years, LD/Green/SNP/Plaid have asked About to join them in a pact opposing Brexit and so on. Labour declined. It's true that the votes in parliament have seen Tories, LDs, Green/SNP/Plaid/Independents vote together and plan together under Cooper, Kinnock Grieve Letwin etc. but Labour has kept its distance.

As I've posted earlier today, the LDs have to say "Corbyn's an arse" because they want to attract Tory retainers to their Remain cause. They don't do that by saying "Vote LD, get Corbyn" It's also the case that a lot of Labour MPs and voters don't think Corbyn is fit to be PM, either.

I can't vote. I will be absent on the date, and I found out my postal vote application went through, but the paper form won't arrive in time. I'd probably vote either Green or LD here - Green because their environmental policies are something I strongly agree with, or LD because they are possibly least badly placed to finish second to the Tory who will get in again here, but I share a lot of the cynicism about them, but they're not, at least, as damaging as the Tories or Corbyn. 

[peterms]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

Possibly so, but as the minor party in a coalition Government you could ask argue that they acted as a (small party) break on the Tories wilder plans as much as they could. They got eaten alive for it, as well. I think they wouldn't make that 'mistake" again. either with the Tories or with Labour's madder plans. But it's by the by because Labour won't, for their own selfish reasons, co-operate.

Yes, we were told the Libdems softened what the tories would otherwise have done, but I can't recall any specific, evidenced cases to set against all the real life examples of things they voted through.

The role of political parties is to seek support for the things they are proposing.  Usually that will mean standing for election.  In rare cases, it may not.  My point is that if you accept the Libdem claim that stopping this tory brexit is the overriding priority, then it is in their interest not to contest some seats.  For Labour, who are not making the same claim and who may well for very good and recently evidenced reasons perceive no practical difference for health, education and other things if a Libdem is elected rather than a tory, the same does not apply.

[Sam-AVFC]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

As I've posted earlier today, the LDs have to say "Corbyn's an arse" because they want to attract Tory retainers to their Remain cause. They don't do that by saying "Vote LD, get Corbyn" It's also the case that a lot of Labour MPs and voters don't think Corbyn is fit to be PM, either.

That's partly why I was asking because I get this, but can't reconcile why that is acceptable whereas Labour saying they'd never join with LD when large numbers of their supporters would become disenfranchised due to actions in the last coalition is not acceptable.

Also, the point that has been made that 'anyone but Corbyn' was preceeded by 'anyone but Milliband' and before that 'anyone but Brown'. I just don't buy it.

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, peterms said:

My point is that if you accept the Libdem claim that stopping this tory brexit is the overriding priority, then it is in their interest not to contest some seats.  For Labour, who are not making the same claim and who may well for very good and recently evidenced reasons perceive no practical difference for health, education and other things if a Libdem is elected rather than a tory, the same does not apply.

Which is fair enough.

Though the LDs are indeed not contesting some seats. Green, Plaid etc the same. Labour is essentially giving the tories a pass in some seats, by opposing Greens LDs etc.

I see that many people feel the way you say about the LDs being yellow tories. And their record doesn't help there, in that they did coalition with the tories. Personally I don't see it that way, but it's a fair enough view, I guess, especially for the tribal.

[cyrusr]

I am definitely getting the feel that this election is a question of "who is the least worse?". Any positive suggestions of any party is immediately shot down with very understandable concerns.

Seriously, where have the good politicians gone? 

[bickster]

1 hour ago, Sam-AVFC said:

I suppose they might have played a part in legalising gay marriage (big might),

Tory policy anyway iirc It came in with the tree logo

[peterms]

23 minutes ago, blandy said:

I see that many people feel the way you say about the LDs being yellow tories. And their record doesn't help there, in that they did coalition with the tories. Personally I don't see it that way, but it's a fair enough view, I guess, especially for the tribal.

It's not tribal.  Their recent record is the solid and factual basis for seeing them as pretty much the same as the tories, in deeds if not in words.  A tribal view would say they are always like that, but there have been periods in the last 20-30 years where they have been more progressive than Labour.  To dismiss distrust of the current Libdems as simply tribal, ie unthinking and untroubled by facts, rather than based on several recent years of their actions, is not to engage with well-documented reality.

[HanoiVillan]

2 hours ago, ml1dch said:

No, they have made a Labour Government their priority. 

Something that is a great deal harder to form if they aim to compete in seats where they can't win but can enable a Tory victory.

 

Longer term, any party with a pretense towards leading a government cannot simply say 'The South West? Write it off, the Lib Dems can have that!' 'University towns? We haven't got a prayer! Why not let the Greens have a go?'

Labour aren't part of any electoral alliances, and I don't think they should be either. The flipside of that is that they can't moan about the Lib Dems fielding a candidate in Canterbury, though they can point out the gap between the rhetoric and the reality. 

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, peterms said:

To dismiss distrust of the current Libdems as simply tribal, ie unthinking and untroubled by facts, rather than based on several recent years of their actions, is not to engage with well-documented reality.

Distrust of a party is fine and well founded. Blind refusal to engage with them is foolish and tribal. "They worked with Tories so we can't trust them" is a strange approach for all those twitterers who yearn for the return of Chris Williamson, who very much worked with the tories on Derby council.

[HanoiVillan]

Just sayin'

 

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, peterms said:

there have been periods in the last 20-30 years where they have been more progressive than Labour.

So parties can change, right? Different leaders take them in different directions, for better or worse. Judge the Libs on what they did over 9 years ago under Clegg, but not on more recent policy and votes?

[blandy]

1 minute ago, HanoiVillan said:

Just sayin'

 

The last line is the best "As a result, you should take these recommendations with a pinch of salt, and if you do feel you need to use these websites, compare the results the different ones give."