Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

Liberal Democrat grassroots sounds unease over Conservative coalition

Hardly surprising, really.

Firstly (and foremost), we aren't used to a coalition government.

Secondly, we aren't used to compromise.

Thirdly, we are not used to party politics seeming to take a step backwards.

Finally, we aren't used to thinking about what might suit our country best.

p.s. I don't think that what we have does suit our country best. I am not in favour of any of the three major parties.

[villadom]

The Conservatives, the party for change, have a cabinet including Kenneth Clarke, William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith - what change? Surely old school tory bastards. The Lib Dems have minor cabinet posts and the Deputy Prime Minister whose previous encumnbents were John Prescott and Harriet Harman. 2000 people in 'the city' will benefit but 60 million will not.

[mykeyb]

I wonder if any organisation are going to carry out polls on PR now we have some sort of government.

It will be very interesting to see if the results will have changed one way or the other.

[mykeyb]

How long do you think the Tories will keep "targets" in the NHS

Too much of a yardstick.

Cant expect to give the NHS less money but still meet waiting list targets can they

[RunRickyRun]

I don't have much of a problem with the Lib Dems forming a government with the Tories.

Part of why I vote lib dem is their support for electoral reform. The reform they are eventually looking to enact will lead to lots of coalition governments.

Another reason is their policies, especially the four main policies Clegg laid out as the dealmaker in any coalition. Forming a coalition means that most of these policies will become a reality.

I think Matthew Norman is spot on when he says that Clegg would have been hammered whichever way he leaned. I also agree that he has made the right decision.

[JulieB]

Well the knives will be out this lot soon enough.. today's media darlings...tomorrow's devils incarnates

However this lot have indeed inherited an absolute quagmire of debt and deficit and I for one would NOT like the job of trying to sort it all out.

It's a flipping mess and today's unemployment figures make any proposed cuts even more unpalitable.

[Condimentalist]

Cant expect to give the NHS less money but still meet waiting list targets can they

I think NHS spending has been ringfenced.

[mykeyb]

For the term of the government or for a set period

[snowychap]

I think NHS spending has been ringfenced.

In 'real terms' which would also have been the case under Labour-and bearing in mind that NHS inflation is flying much higher than apparent inflation anywhere else.

[mykeyb]

How so Snowy

[snowychap]

How so Snowy

How so what, mate?

[mykeyb]

NHS Inflation is higher than normal inflation

[leviramsey]

Isn't it completely tempered by the £10k Tax threshold though? Whilst one comes in sooner doesn't the other balance it out and improve money for the lower paid? (after the emergency budget obviously)

So Libs get their bit and the Tories get a bit of theirs

If anything, I think the 10k threshold may be very nearly government revenue neutral: most of the difference in tax will go straight into consumption which means more VAT, more jobs (and thus more NI), etc.

[snowychap]

NHS Inflation is higher than normal inflation

Ah, sorry.

From what I have read, inflation in the NHS is running at a much higher level than any other level of inflation (some calls are about 8% rather than 4%) and it has a logical thought: most NHS spending increases are about new drugs; new drugs are more expensive than older drugs, therefore an inflation level increase in spending actually means fewer services offered because of the relative situation regarding costs.

[snowychap]

If anything, I think the 10k threshold may be very nearly government revenue neutral...

Actually, there are a number of calls saying that the 10k limit is not beneficial for low income people.

I guess that is to do with tax credits but there is a definite question about it's efficacy.

[leviramsey]

Yes I am in favour of electoral reform - one would hope that any commitment that each of the parties made would then be reflected would not be discarded within minutes of getting elected. It seems now that for one party they have now done a complete and utter U turn on electoral reform.

Have you thought this through?

A more proportional system would almost surely result in coalitions of various stripes being needed in order to govern (proportional systems do occasionally give one party a majority, but that's a comparative rarity). Put yourself in the shoes of a party that could hold balance of power for a moment. There are three options:

* Accept the larger party's campaign promises 100% (promises which you at least partially disagree with, otherwise why would you be in a smaller party (ignoring regional arrangements: the German CDU/CSU are effectively the same party) when you could be in the bigger party with the benefits accruing therefrom?)... in which case you've 100% sold out your voters' beliefs and aren't really doing your future career prospects any good

* Insist that the larger party take on your promises 100% (perhaps more viable than the other case, after all the party that holds the balance of power is like a marginal constituency, though the implications of agreeing to this to the character of the larger party's leadership are interesting, to say the least)

* Develop a fusion of policies that allows both parties to say that they made a good trade

Which one do you choose?

I've noted before (and I heard a Tory on the World Service (which I've been listening to a lot this past week... it's helped that the Stern show has been rather lacklustre, though the interview with the excommunicated Amish glamour model was stimulating) make the point) that Labour, the Lib Dems, and Tories are coalitions as well, with the difference being that in a system where there's only two viable parties the people get to vote on which coalition they prefer. Perhaps it should be that six months after a coalition government forms there's a simple up-or-down referendum on whether it's a good coalition.

If we do get a revised voting system - and interestingly again how come so many who were so against it are now saying that the ConDem lot are setting out a good set of policy and ideas - surely then they are now fully supporters of Electoral reform?

That may actually be part of Clegg's thinking: there's a lot of FUD (I specifically recall some from Awol) that the coalition governments that will result in chaos. If a LibLab coalition formed, that could be written off as "they're all a bunch of lefties, of course they get along" (ignoring that the way of thinking and philosophical underpinnings of the parties are very different even if the separate roads lead to similar destinations)*. If he can convince even the more centrist portions of the centre-right that coalitions do not imply disaster then he's achieved a goal, because to a certain extent the only way you can have a successful revolution is to enlist the conservative forces of society.

Politics is changing - maybe the Tory party want this to fail so that they can say alliances don't work? Who knows - I am just enjoying a lot of the hypocrisy though from people on here and in the political environments

Interesting bit from Jonathan Freedland

How naive we now seem. Last Thursday night most observers assumed that the Conservatives were sorely disappointed to have fallen short of an overall majority, however small. Now, having seen the beaming smile and buddy-movie embrace of David Cameron and Nick Clegg on the doorstep of No 10, a new, mischievous thought dawns: maybe a Con-Lib Dem coalition is precisely what Cameron, and a small circle around him, wanted all along.

For the new government begun in earnest today presents an intriguing opportunity to the Conservatives: the chance to do nothing less than realign British politics, reshaping their party and shedding the millstones that have hung around their collective neck for at least two decades.

Put another way, the agreement he has signed with the Liberal Democrats could make Cameron the most transformational Tory figure since Robert Peel, the founder of the modern Conservative party.

No wonder the Tory leader has given signs large and small that he regards a partnership with the Lib Dems as anything but a necessary evil. He didn't need to give equal billing to Clegg in today's Rose Garden-style press conference, but he did. Tellingly, Cameron put his partners first, speaking of "this Liberal Democrat-Conservative coalition". Cameron is not hiding this arrangement in the shadows; he's shouting about it from the Downing Street rooftops.

The explanation lies not in the mechanical benefits the Con-Lib accord brings the Tories, starting with comfortable majorities in both Commons and Lords. Rather it resides in what has been the defining strategy of Cameron's leadership of his party: the decontamination of the Tory brand.

Since taking over in 2005, the Tory leader has tried to recast his party as one with which liberal Britons could feel comfortable – modern, tolerant, environmentally aware. That has been an uphill struggle, as the failure to "seal the deal" in last week's election confirms. Yet at a stroke, Cameron has rammed his point home. How, runs the logic, could anyone dispute the liberal credentials of the new prime minister now? His government is packed full of Liberals. Cameron had always tried to rebrand himself as a liberal Conservative. Today he could speak of his "liberal Conservative government" – and the phrase was no longer empty.

That's why Tories speak of these last 48 hours as Cameron's "clause IV moment". He has taken a bold step that challenges the party faithful – with the hope of forcing the public to look at his party anew.

The objective is clear. Cameron wants to shed forever the image of the Conservatives as the "nasty party". This deal, and the terms of the coalition agreement, might just allow that to happen.

The Tories plan to do the right thing on civil liberties – scrapping ID cards, for example – and to do what Labour did not do on political reform: introduce an elected second chamber. And all the while they will have Liberal Democrats standing at their side, vouching for their good character.

Of course, the whole enterprise could unravel, disintegrating into acrimony. Biting cuts in public services might make this Tory government look just as nasty as the others. But this time the axe will bear Lib Dem fingerprints too: instead of facing denunciations from Vince Cable, David Cameron will count on him as an advocate.

If this works, the prize is enormous. Cameron will own the centre ground of British politics, where elections are won and lost, shutting out Labour. He will have muted the influence of the Tory right, who might otherwise have dragged him off course, willingly pulled instead in the other direction by his new Lib Dem buddies.

Then, when the time comes to face the voters, Cameron will be able to present himself as the reasonable, liberal choice. Why would anyone need to vote Liberal Democrat? Hegemony beckons.

This, in reverse, was the dream of Cameron's idol, Tony Blair. He too imagined an alliance with the Lib Dems that would make his party dominant.

Back in 1997, it was a pact of the anti-Tory forces Blair sought, with Paddy Ashdown at his side.

Why couldn't he do it? Because Blair made a mistake that Cameron did not: he won far too many seats.

*: of course, it's fairly easy for some (and I expect Labour will try this tack) to say "they're all a bunch of upper class white males of protestant background who went to public schools and Oxbridge, of course they agree"...

[OutByEaster?]

Do you know what, the more I see of it the more I like it - it's like a conservative party government with a conscience grafted on to it.

This could work you know, it's just a shame that the task ahead is pretty much impossible.

[drat01]

So you are suggesting that there ought to be no compromise? :?

where have I said that?

Well, you've pretty much condemnded the idea in your posts.

Lies, lies, lies. For a kick off.

They lied (that was the word that many VT'ers used in regard to pre election promises so only using the same rules) - you are happy to buy it fair enough (interestingly now your stance is hidden behind the word compromise as I seem to remember many an occasion under the last lot that you quoted the manifesto as some sort of commitment with little or no allowance for changes of circumstances?).

Just pointing out the major hypocrisy of the political parties and quite a few of the VT'ers who post in these threads. It's hard some days to understand what "rules" we are working by in terms of how and when you can comment.

You are happy seemingly with a mix of ConDem - I can't see it working.

And as a side point a little fact from Newsnight last night about the make up of this "compromise" cabinet makes interesting reading

"Blair's 1st Cabinet: 17% Oxbridge. The new Cabinet: 65% Oxbridge, 61% private school, over 90% white, middle aged men."

It seems that "compromise" is a very selective entity

[Jon]

And as a side point a little fact from Newsnight last night about the make up of this "compromise" cabinet makes interesting reading

"Blair's 1st Cabinet: 17% Oxbridge. The new Cabinet: 65% Oxbridge, 61% private school, over 90% white, middle aged men."

who gives a feck where they come from/where they were educated, if they are the best people for the job?

[JulieB]

Do you know what, the more I see of it the more I like it - it's like a conservative party government with a conscience grafted on to it.

This could work you know, it's just a shame that the task ahead is pretty much impossible.

I think this sums it up very well.

TBF from day one David Cameron has complained about his distaste for "Punch & Judy" British politics, that there had to be a better way. So now he's got his chance to try it out.

Like I said before I want to know where they're all going to sit now in both Parliment and House of Lords and PM's question time could be fun when Clegg has to deputise.