Bolitics The New Condem Government

[TrentVilla]

I totally agree Jon, they will be seen to have sold their soul and I don't see how they can recover from it.

[snowychap]

Ah, yes, well, um......I know why they should, but why they would, er,.....maybe their might be a bit of an uprising - continuation of this UKuncut protest thingy, more riots, that kind of thing....no....it's not going to happen is it?

Ah, the indirect consequences of a Tory (and their dog) administration might well produce more of that (here's hoping, perhaps) and it might well highlight that something should be done but, as you say, it probably actually won't be done.

[snowychap]

Absolutely. This is what Clegg is hoping for. from a party viewpoint...

I think you're giving Clegg (and the others) much too much credit.

I think the backbench Lib Dems are, too.

Though when the party deputy leader is a slimy bugger like Simon Hughes, it's not a surprise that there isn't much real questioning.

[Richard]

Cameron "telling off" Cable, shows who is running the show

Just interested in who you think should tell of a cabinet secretary if not the Prime Minister?

[snowychap]

If they are in this farcical marriage after May, I really fear for their future as a viable party ....

The only way I can see them not being part of the coalition is if the government were to fall.

No matter how much the Torygraph might be trying to engineer that, I'm not sure that could happen by then (unless this weather stays with us until March some time, seriously affects GDP figures/retail sales figures - in a majorly negative way rather than just knocking them or suppressing them - and we have some kind of crisis with regard to the cost/availability of gas supplies).

[Jon]

If they are in this farcical marriage after May, I really fear for their future as a viable party ....

The only way I can see them not being part of the coalition is if the government were to fall.

You don't think it's feasible that many of them/most of them may want out after the vote goes against them in May? Could they not simply withdraw form the coalition?

[blandy]

The whole working together thing is what a large proportion of people said they wanted, at a time of national downturn in particular.

Did they? I'm not sure people really voted for a coalition government, they voted for a party just not in enough numbers for any one party and a coalition was the end result but I think very few people actually wanted it.

I'm not talking about how people voted, or why they voted a particular way I'm talking about interviews, surveys and so on, about feedback from the TV debates - where it was widespread that people wanted politicians to stop bickering and to work together to sort this mess out.

[tonyh29]

David Cameron now has to make the same choice that thousands of UK householders have had to make.

Sky or Cable

[peterms]

Thing is Ian, on benefits they did spend a lot of time looking into reforming them

Did they? :?

Duncan Smith claimed to have been looking at it since he once visited Glasgow (or wherever) ...

It was indeed Glasgow. Easterhouse in fact, one of the most deprived areas of the country.

Duncan Smith got a lot of credit for putting himself out and taking the time to try to understand what the issues were. For example, this article.

Why I know that Iain Duncan Smith's visit to Easterhouse was no stunt but an impressive bid to listen and learn

0 Comments | Mail on Sunday (London, England), The, March 31, 2002 | by Bob Holman

By BOB HOLMAN Professor turned social worker who showed Iain Duncan Smith around one of Scotland's poorest estates

There are people who say that what Iain Duncan Smith did and said was simply a publicity stunt and that nothing has really changed.

It is not true. When he met the people of Easterhouse at our centre, we made it plain from the start that it was to be a private meeting - he agreed immediately.

I told him he wouldn't get many votes in this traditional Labour stronghold and he said: 'I know that.

I'm here to learn.' He impressed me because he really listened to how people lived and was often visibly moved and shocked, even though Easterhouse has made very positive strides forward in recent years.

I've been in the Labour Party for 40 years and it goes back too long for me to ever change my vote, but if the Conservatives adopt more humane policies they will push New Labour into a more radical position.

Coming to Easterhouse was a significant experience for Iain Duncan Smith and I don't think he will turn back on what he saw. But can he take the rest of the party with him?

There are many who will turn against him at any suggestion of higher taxation to help the poor.

There were no policies put forward, but what is significant is that he said the Conservative Party is concerned about what he considers vulnerable people, and he accepted that poverty exists. Margaret Thatcher refused to acknowledge that there were poor people. It is an extraordinary about-turn and one I am delighted to see.

Twenty-six years ago I was a professor at Bath University, lecturing on poverty and its effects. I had a detached house, a [pound]7,000 salary, two cars and two young children. I had just had a book published on poverty and it had made quite a bit of money, which made me feel uncomfortable.

I felt that what I was doing was all wrong.

I felt I should be out there in the housing estates working with people, not writing or talking about problems. My wife Annette, then a hospital almoner - a social worker responsible for patients' welfare - shared my views. My colleagues thought I was mad and still do.

We took our children Ruth, then ten, and David, nine, into a council estate in Bath. I knocked on every door and asked people what they wanted. The answer was always the same - something for the kids to do, and the chance of a job.

We opened a youth club, we took in women and children beaten up by husbands.

One night, as a man banged on our door shouting for his wife who was inside, I turned to see Ruth, white-faced at what she had heard. At times I wondered if we were doing the right thing for our children. Ruth is now a hospital consultant, David a university research fellow and both say they are glad of the experience and values it gave them.

In Glasgow for the past 16 years working within the local community I've seen what people can do when they help each other. But even though much has improved here, enormous deprivations still exist in Easterhouse.

I'm disappointed with New Labour, but I would rather be a critic within the party than outside it. Tony Blair's New Deal to get the over-18s onto training courses has not worked here. Those who leave do not receive benefits and do not exist on the lists of unemployed, so unemployment figures show 20 per cent, which is an underestimate.

They are not registering to vote and we now have a core of mainly young males who are almost disengaged from society. Add to that drugs and you have a volatile, unpredictable mass who simply don't exist officially. Poverty breeds debt and New Labour promised it would reverse the Tory changes of 1988 which abolished grants to social security claimants which had allowed them to replace furniture.

The Tories brought in discretionary loans, deducted from Giro cheques.

New Labour condemned it but once in, kept the system. Income Support for a family of four is [pound]165 - start deducting loans from it and it doesn't go far.

Refused a grant they fall into the hands of moneylenders, or loan sharks who charge 50 to 70 per cent interest.

I'm no saint who has given up everything to live on a scheme. I've been given more here than I could have imagined. I've seen people budget on pitifully little, still hopeful that their children will find not just work but a career.

We need to give the children things to do and maintain a relationship with them into their 20s so that we're there when they need help.

Iain Duncan Smith listened to our workers, he met the unemployed and the single mums - all the people the Conservatives used to single out for blame.

Here he saw them in a positive light, trying their hardest to survive, keeping their dignity and their hopes intact.

He was impressed with them... as we were with him.

He clearly impressed the people he met with his open attitude, willingness to listen, and preparedness to rethink some of his ideas.

So, what happened when he'd digested all this, mulled it over for several years, and finally had the chance to put into action some of the lessons he'd learned?

Well, here's the verdict from the community leader he met and who was so impressed with him.

I thought I knew Iain Duncan Smith

The Iain Duncan Smith I knew almost wept at Easterhouse's plight. But he's unrecognisable now

Bob Holman

I no longer recognise the Iain Duncan Smith with whom I have had a cross-party friendship for eight years. In 2002, as the Conservative party leader, he visited the young people's project I helped to found in Easterhouse, Glasgow. I was impressed by his willingness to take local residents seriously. He has described the visit as a kind of epiphany: "I saw the poverty among a swath of forgotten people. I felt I had to do something and came away a changed man."

After losing the party leadership he founded the Centre for Social Justice, which has published some insightful reports. But since becoming work and pensions secretary this year he appears to have accepted old Tory policies on every crucial issue. Let's look at a couple of them.

Poverty. In 2003, Duncan Smith said: "I want to be the party for the poor." He bravely spoke at a 2005 Labour party conference fringe meeting, saying Labour's definition of poverty was too limited: it is "not just about a lack of basics but a lack of sufficient resources to participate in the life of the community". What has happened now? At a time of rising food prices, the freezing of benefits and tax credits makes the poor even poorer. The new system of local housing allowances will mean 774,000 households losing an average of £9 a week.

Communities. Duncan Smith has said again and again that stable communities and families are the core of a good society. And yet the cap on housing benefits will force thousands of families to move to cheaper areas. Simultaneously, deprived communities to which they are drafted will find it difficult to accept more pressure. One of Duncan Smith's great achievements has been to highlight the capacity of locally run community groups to improve local life. He promised his party would legislate to ensure that "public money would flow to more diverse, innovative and locally based projects". But the cuts imposed by the coalition government on councils have resulted in grants to many local groups being axed; and many are closing down entirely.

My long experience in deprived areas tells me that the number who make a rational decision to live on benefits is tiny. I know others who cannot face working: those with mental health problems, for instance, or severe behavioural difficulties. These are the very people that the small voluntary projects, highlighted by the Centre for Social Justice, can help. But this involves building relationships and providing support, not compulsion.

Most jobless people do not need this treatment. I have a friend, a single man with no qualifications. He has made numerous job applications but is still long-term unemployed. Recently he got as far as an interview. He was one applicant among 20. He failed again. Last year he wanted to help as a volunteer for our annual camp. The week coincided with his signing on, and officials warned that if he went his money would be docked.

It would make more sense if local groups like ours were financed to employ people like him. Why didn't Duncan Smith propose this?

The IDS I knew was a politician who almost wept at the plight of the poor. My guess is that, in order to reach his costly goal of a universal credit scheme, he has had to mollify the chancellor, George Osborne – and that can only be done by being like those Tories who take pleasure in punishing the poor.

There is an alternative. I have observed his rare gift of being able to listen to and communicate with people crushed by social deprivation. I believe he should leave the cabinet and devote himself to the cause of those at the hard end. He cannot create compassionate Conservatism alongside Osborne and Cameron; the danger is that they will change him instead.

[Awol]

Conservative MP's - 307. Share of popular vote - 10,703,754

Lib Dem MP's - 57. Share of popular vote - 6,836,824

More than five Tories for every Lib Dem. Quite how much influence should they be expected to have in the running and decisions of the Government? They are not coming at the coalition as anything like equal partners but in terms of raw numbers they are probably over-represented at Ministerial level and having a disproportionate effect on policy.

To expect them to do much more than they are now is a little naive imo. If they had got into bed with Labour and foisted Brwn back onto the country they'd have been hated by many many people. Equally the more left wing Lib Dem voters are grumping that they are enabling the Tories to govern. If they brought down the government now (or soon) chances are it could down to a straight fight between Labour, and the Tories. I still think the Conservatives would get a clear majority this time if there was an election in the near future (being pissed off at child benefit cuts isn't going to make the M/C vote for Red Ed) so how would the Lib Des gain from that situation?

As Tony and Blandy have said, the Lib Dems best option is to play the long game.

[TrentVilla]

To expect them to do much more than they are now is a little naive imo.

I don't agree, though I agree with your figures.

I don't think its too much to expect for them to stand by the principles on which they achieved those votes. Yes I know all parties break election promises but few go back on ideology in quite the way the Lib Dems have done so far. I don't expect them to influence Tory policy greatly when so out numbered but I do think its fair to expect them to have a little more backbone and stand by their beliefs, they might not be able to stop or shape legislation but they don't have to back it.

You said yourself that considering their votes and seats they are over represented within ministerial roles.

Well that in itself is telling, they have been bought or at least their silence has been bought by the gift of roles in this government.

How can anyone take them seriously, I read recently that all those Lib Dem's with ministerial jobs voted in favour of the tuition fee rise and all the others didn't.

If true that says everything to me about those from the party in this government.

[drat01]

So Jon you are now in favour of PR? Again you are showing the arrogance of the Tory supporters in dismissing any sort of impact that LbDems shoudl have had. To quote your figures from above 364 MP's - voted for by 17.5 million voters. Therefore using that logic the LibDems shoudl have had 120 MP's?

I see you try and deflect the impact, or lack of it by a reference to Labour. The arrogance though is that you expect the LibDems to pander to every Tory policy. The fact is that the country did NOT elect a Tory Gvmt, they were the biggest party but it was a minority and as such they have little mandate for so many of the regressive and vindictive policies that Clegg is forcing the LibDem MP's to follow on Cameron and Osborne (and no doubt some of the big money backers) say so.

To suggest they should play the "long game" is totally hypocritical of what you said during the last Gvmt. The MP's are accountable to their electorate in their constituencies not playing some lap dog to a different party leadership. Red Ed - I do love that

[Richard]

As Tony and Blandy have said, the Lib Dems best option is to play the long game

Only option really.

[Richard]

......lots of samey stuff

Seen you use the arrogant word a lot Ian, is this the Liebour line of attack?

[Clarry]

The embarrassed Lib Dem ministers should show some balls and cross the floor to the opposition.

[Awol]

So Jon you are now in favour of PR? Again you are showing the arrogance of the Tory supporters in dismissing any sort of impact that LbDems shoudl have had. To quote your figures from above 364 MP's - voted for by 17.5 million voters. Therefore using that logic the LibDems shoudl have had 120 MP's?

I see you try and deflect the impact, or lack of it by a reference to Labour. The arrogance though is that you expect the LibDems to pander to every Tory policy. The fact is that the country did NOT elect a Tory Gvmt, they were the biggest party but it was a minority and as such they have little mandate for so many of the regressive and vindictive policies that Clegg is forcing the LibDem MP's to follow on Cameron and Osborne (and no doubt some of the big money backers) say so.

To suggest they should play the "long game" is totally hypocritical of what you said during the last Gvmt. The MP's are accountable to their electorate in their constituencies not playing some lap dog to a different party leadership. Red Ed - I do love that

If I thought you'd listen to a word of my reply then the time would be worth it. As we both know that isn't going to happen I won't waste the bandwidth.

[blandy]

So Jon you are now in favour of PR? Again you are showing the arrogance of the Tory supporters in dismissing any sort of impact that LbDems shoudl have had. To quote your figures from above 364 MP's - voted for by 17.5 million voters. Therefore using that logic the LibDems shoudl have had 120 MP's?

I'm in favour of PR. I don't think Awol's showing arrogance, he's (to me) merely pointing out the arithmetic of the current situation - 57 MPs as against 300 odd - they are not going to be able to put through their manifesto, all they can do is get a small part of it through, plus areas of overlap with the Tories. It's just the simple reality they face. They'll get slated for when the Gov't does things that don't tally with Lib Dem principles and credit when the Gov't does do things in line with their principles. That's as it should be, that's what they ought to accept. There's probably a load of the more mental tories doing their nuts at some of the stuff that's gone on, because it's just not severe right wing. Had the libs not joined with the tories, then we'd have been in a worse mess - no party got enough on it's own to be Gov't, a minority Gov't would fall straight away and Labour - Lib ought to have been a non-starter based both on the election results - Tories getting the most votes, and Labour unfortunately being in a right mess, tired and bereft of ideas, and rotten in the middle with all the factions.

Personally, I would love Labour to get it's act together sharpish and properly do the opposition job - the Tories are getting away with an easy time of it at the mo' - the odd kerfuffle about whoever saying something out of term aside. They did OK on the student stuff, but got "you did the same thing" thrown back at them (they intro'd the fees when they said they wouldn't). Little Ed hasn't really found his feet, yet.

[Richard]

So Jon you are now in favour of PR? Again you are showing the arrogance of the Tory supporters in dismissing any sort of impact that LbDems shoudl have had. To quote your figures from above 364 MP's - voted for by 17.5 million voters. Therefore using that logic the LibDems shoudl have had 120 MP's?

I'm in favour of PR. I don't think Awol's showing arrogance, he's (to me) merely pointing out the arithmetic of the current situation - 57 MPs as against 300 odd - they are not going to be able to put through their manifesto, all they can do is get a small part of it through, plus areas of overlap with the Tories. It's just the simple reality they face. They'll get slated for when the Gov't does things that don't tally with Lib Dem principles and credit when the Gov't does do things in line with their principles. That's as it should be, that's what they ought to accept. There's probably a load of the more mental tories doing their nuts at some of the stuff that's gone on, because it's just not severe right wing. Had the libs not joined with the tories, then we'd have been in a worse mess - no party got enough on it's own to be Gov't, a minority Gov't would fall straight away and Labour - Lib ought to have been a non-starter based both on the election results - Tories getting the most votes, and Labour unfortunately being in a right mess, tired and bereft of ideas, and rotten in the middle with all the factions..

A simple and precise summary of the situation!

[drat01]

So Jon you are now in favour of PR? Again you are showing the arrogance of the Tory supporters in dismissing any sort of impact that LbDems shoudl have had. To quote your figures from above 364 MP's - voted for by 17.5 million voters. Therefore using that logic the LibDems shoudl have had 120 MP's?

I'm in favour of PR. I don't think Awol's showing arrogance, he's (to me) merely pointing out the arithmetic of the current situation - 57 MPs as against 300 odd - they are not going to be able to put through their manifesto, all they can do is get a small part of it through, plus areas of overlap with the Tories. It's just the simple reality they face. They'll get slated for when the Gov't does things that don't tally with Lib Dem principles and credit when the Gov't does do things in line with their principles. That's as it should be, that's what they ought to accept. There's probably a load of the more mental tories doing their nuts at some of the stuff that's gone on, because it's just not severe right wing. Had the libs not joined with the tories, then we'd have been in a worse mess - no party got enough on it's own to be Gov't, a minority Gov't would fall straight away and Labour - Lib ought to have been a non-starter based both on the election results - Tories getting the most votes, and Labour unfortunately being in a right mess, tired and bereft of ideas, and rotten in the middle with all the factions.

Personally, I would love Labour to get it's act together sharpish and properly do the opposition job - the Tories are getting away with an easy time of it at the mo' - the odd kerfuffle about whoever saying something out of term aside. They did OK on the student stuff, but got "you did the same thing" thrown back at them (they intro'd the fees when they said they wouldn't). Little Ed hasn't really found his feet, yet.

Disagree Pete - The arrogance many are seeing is across all parts of the Tory party from the main players in the Gvmt, through the rank and file fee payers (and a few giving the donations) down to forums such as this. The simple fact is that they cannot understand how anyone can question their regressive and ideological led policies. They are very much of the opinion that because they have "let" the LibDem leaders share a few rostrums and Gvmt cars they should basically follow each policy.

The LibDem's were not voted to support these ideas, the manifesto was vastly different and the ideas of the past few years vastly different to that which they are now seemingly happy to support. The Tory party are using the LibDem's in a way which is amazingly accepted by Clegg and Cable. look at any "bad news" policy and its typically the LibDem part of the Gvmt who is wheeled out to either front the story or they ensure that they are at their side. It's not even clever marketing really. Big companies do it often with smaller business partners.

Cable and the other LibDem's let a lot out of the bag in the last few days, nearly all of it was suspected by many and to see them now deny it is only more damaging to the LibDem's. The Tory party need the LibDem's to ensure that policies that were not acceptable to the UK public are forced through, hence the way they are screwing them at the moment.

As EM said today

"Today's revelations paint a damning picture of the character and direction of this government.

"Labour has been saying for some months, this government is not in the centre-ground of British politics.

"It is one well out on the Right.

"The key economic and welfare decisions are Tory decisions.

"On child benefit, housing benefit, tuition fees, and the pace of deficit reduction.

"These are decisions of a Conservative-led government propped up by Liberal Democrat passengers.

"Passengers not in the front seat.

"Passengers who have got themselves locked in the boot."

[tonyh29]

" VT Outraged " Buzzword update Dec 2010

What's in

Arrogance

Whats Out

Hypocrisy

Personally I'd say arrogance was taking advice from experts on issues like selling Gold , then ignoring it because you feel you know better

or saying you'd fixed boom and bust and not apologising to the country when it became clear you hadn't

or calling a woman a bigot because you didn't like her question

and so on