Oh look - the Lib Dems are making us a promise just before the election.
And I believe them. They've never broken an election promise before.
Vic.
The Liberal Democrats have announced a new Digital Rights Bill which they want to introduce if they form part of a new coalition government after the general election. A press release from Nick Clegg's political party describes the bill as necessary "following a series of disturbing news reports" after much-publicised data …
Liberal Democrats != Julian.
Like his party or not he himself:
1. Is extremely consistent for a politician - see his voting record and questions record
2. He has been a thorn in the side of Treasonous May for the duration of the last parliament
3. He actually listens to his constituents - if you write to him you get a reply and if you "get on his case" for him to alter something you can see him after that taking it into account (if it makes sense).
He has proposed this long ago. Unfortunately, as with everything a minority party _BACKBENCH_ MP will propose, the chance of it getting to the finish line while still being recognizeable is ~ NULL.
Anon - as I am one of his constituents :)
He has been a thorn in the side of Treasonous May for the duration of the last parliament
I'm really not convinced of that - he voted for a one-day process to push through a law on mass interception and retention of data, voted for that mass interception and retention, and voted against the DRIP Act having a sunset clause in 2014 - i.e. voted for it to be active until 2016.
I'm not convinced that makes him a "thorn in the side" of May. He seems to be siding with her more than I'd like.
Vic.
Our LibDem MP also voted for DRIP, having previously promised that he would not agree to anything like it. He claimed that some things had to be done when you're in guvmint and are Tough On Things(tm). The frustrating thing is that these were LibDem principles which were sacrificed for expediency, not for any reasoned purpose. For that reason, I see no reason to give them a vote, and their election leaflets, which are entirely negative (it simply says "vote for us to keep the others out") re-inforce that view.
Julian didn't bother to turn up for the vote on banning letting agents charging fees to tenants. As a member of his constituency who doesn't enjoy coughing up £75 for a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of a tenancy agreement, I say screw him!
Political parties often break election promises; it is hardly fair to single out the Lib Dems as uniquely poor in this respect. But on the plus side, given the kicking they are getting over the student fees backtrack, they may be more wary of backtracking again.
Perhaps a cynical optimist's approach might be to try to judge which of the parties is most likely to implement something most like their preferred digirights arrangements, or who might manage to modify another party's proposals along those lines, and vote for them.
It seems to me that neither the C or L parties are likely to do much for digirights - since they haven't already, and have had the better opportunities - so maybe this libdem promise is worth a punt.
But then again, actually I/we don't get to vote for a manifesto, but only an MP. So perhaps we should query our MPs directly rather than assuming they are in alignment with central party machinery?
so maybe this libdem promise is worth a punt.
I admire your optimism, but from the first page of the paper :-
This paper sets out our ideas for a future Digital Bill of Rights. It is a preliminary proposal only
There doesn't yet appear to be any promise...
Vic.
Just the nature of coalition government
Easy solution: free votes and the whips stay away when there are conflicts like that. That way the respective parties are given the opportunity to stick to their promises.
If the prime minister can't get a bill through parliament on that sort of basis then he doesn't deserve to, and should have thought twice about introducing it in the first place.
Easy solution: free votes and the whips stay away when there are conflicts like that. That way the respective parties are given the opportunity to stick to their promises.
I always thought that should have been the LibDem position on tuition fees. It was such a major component of their policies to a lot of their voters (they get a lot of student support) that backing down on that was a huge mistake.
I also think that MPs should be forced to honour their promises. If they break them, an immediate by-election should be called. All such promises should be lodged with the electoral commission by candidates and/or parties, and anyone should be able to lodge a complaint that they promised and didn't lodge it.
At least then we would see what the candidate/party actually intends to stick to, majority or not. It may make things difficult in a coalition, but you should be able to rely on that list as to what they will actually stick to.
@AMBxx ...and whichever scum get in we desperately need some of their election promises to be broken. Every time.
If there was a 'hung parliament' option on the voting form I'd use it, keep the bastards from pretending we voted for their batshit insane policies because they bundled them with less unpalatable ones than the other side.
We are supposed to vote for someone to represent *us* in Parliament. Unfortunately we usually get someone who will just do what their Party Whips tell them to do :-(
"Political parties often break election promises; it is hardly fair to single out the Lib Dems as uniquely poor in this respect. But on the plus side, given the kicking they are getting over the student fees backtrack, they may be more wary of backtracking again."
To be fair to the Lib-Dems, they've always been a party for protest voters. They probably never expected having to have their policies confront the real world so they could promise anything.
Copy pasta from my previous comment on this
Also Lib Dems - more fool them - have done the responsible thing, they joined in coalition with the party that had the greatest number of MPs, as a junior partner they got a little bit of what they wanted and had to do a lot of what the senior partner wanted.
Sadly England's retarded and doesn't understand how coalitions work. So it seems rather clear that the reason the Tories haven't been as draconian in "law & order" and "immigration" and EU relations is because the Lib Dems wouldn't support them (things like legalising global interception and decryption of comms.)
They even got a vote on a new voting system (a rubbish one maybe) but a vote none the less - however refer to previous point about England being retarded and not understanding how coalitions work. It would of made everyones vote count, and led to an upsurge in single issue parties people actually agree with as opposed to what we generally have is two single issue parties and a bunch of generalist dicks. Oh well.
Oh and if the Lib Dems hadn't joined in the coalition? I suspect the government would of collapsed within a year and a return to the polls would of resulted in a sweeping Tory majority.
As an addition to that - a manifesto is not a set of promises, it is what the party intends to do if it wins the election - to date the Lib Dems have not won a General election.
Lib Dems - more fool them - have done the responsible thing, they joined in coalition with the party that had the greatest number of MPs, as a junior partner they got a little bit of what they wanted and had to do a lot of what the senior partner wanted.
I completely agree. It was the responsible thing to do, even though they have lost a lot of support for it. Neither party got everything they wanted, and I do believe that having the LibDems as a junior partner tempered the Tories in a way which benefited the country. The policies which have been put into effect have been a blend of the two parties, roughly in proportion to their seat count. I think it has actually gone very well, and shown that coalition governments can work in this country, even though a lot of people disagree.
However, the tuition fees issue was different. LibDem MPs, individually, pledged to vote against any tuition fee rises. This was not just an "if we win the election we will..." promise, it was an outright, no-matter-what pledge. It was not just an entry in the manifesto, it was a pledge made by individual MPs, including Clegg. That sort of promise should not be allowed to be broken, and the LibDems should have stuck to their guns on it.
"LibDem MPs, individually, pledged to vote against any tuition fee rises. This was not just an "if we win the election we will..." promise, it was an outright, no-matter-what pledge. It was not just an entry in the manifesto, it was a pledge made by individual MPs, including Clegg. That sort of promise should not be allowed to be broken, and the LibDems should have stuck to their guns on it."
That's all very well, and I don't disagree, but I can't see that they be disproportionately damned for this just because it was their first go at being in government. Both Labour and the Tories have broken multitudinous pledges in government even when they had it all to themselves.
The LibDems must be enormously frustrated; they've put in an overwhelmingly competent performance as a junior coalition partner and demonstrated that you really didn't need some of the nastier aspects of the Tory ideology to start the economy into recovery.
Unfortunately, in sanding off some of the rough edges of the Tory party (some of the dust has fallen into UKIP's lap), they've had the effect of making the larger partner more acceptable to more people.
Labour did too when Tom Watson ran his 'Say no to the Sun' campaign a little while back, and as for Labour's main site:
http://www.tcpiputils.com/browse/domain/labour.org.uk
And as a bonus they seem to use Microsofts services for email. The MX record for their domain points to this:
http://www.tcpiputils.com/browse/ip-address/213.199.154.87
We're all screwed no matter who we vote for...
This post has been deleted by its author
There's policies, and then there's pre-election pledges. Some people seem to think the LibDems made the tuition fees issue such a strong commitment in their election campaign that it should have been a line they would not cross. Whether it would have been worth bringing the coalition down over is another matter, but some people clearly think it would.
Vimes,
The Lib Dems are a party who've been campaigning for PR and coalition governments being a better idea for their entire existence. Not to go into coalition when there was a viable option to do so would basically be like saying "our party is a pointless waste of time".
So of course they went into coalition. It's what they went into politics for. To try and get some of their policies enacted. There was only one viable coalition to choose from. Becuase Lab+Lib Dems wasn't enough MPs to get a majority. The only two viable coalitions after the last election were Lab+Con or Lib+Con. Also although you don't need to win an election to be Prime Minister, I don't think people would have been very happy for Gordon Brown to be PM without an election and to then have comprehensively lost his first one, and still to remain in Downing Street. So both politically and practically the Lib Dems had only one viable option, as long as they were offered a reasonable agreement.
As for the tuition fee increase, we basically seem to have a graduate tax now (with a few extra bells and whistles). So perhaps that's what they should have done instead?
The Lib Dems are a party who've been campaigning for PR and coalition governments being a better idea for their entire existence. Not to go into coalition when there was a viable option to do so would basically be like saying "our party is a pointless waste of time".
Except that people didn't vote lib Dems for them to be in government no matter what, they voted for lib dem policies. There is something dishonest about how they behaved, especially when they are aware a large chunk of people would never have voted for them had they realised that this outcome was a very real possibility. They got into government based on the votes of people that they would never have got had the voters realised what could happen as a result of voting lib dem.
As for 'viable' that's a matter of opinion, especially if being in coalition completely destroys any faith that people might have otherwise had in any future promises and pledges.
I've already said elsewhere how I think conflicts should have been handled, and personally speaking I think a system without any party whips where the MPs really do represent the interests of their constituency rather than those of their party would be one of the best things that could happen to this country, even if PR is completely forgotten.
If any leader can't carry his or her own MPs without that sort of thing then how in any real sense are they a leader?
Except that people didn't vote lib Dems for them to be in government no matter what, they voted for lib dem policies.
Vimes,
And one of the main Lib Dem policies was, and has always been, to bleat on about how wonderful and great and mature European consensus, coalition politics is. And therefore how the Lib Dems believe in consensus building with other parties, coalition, and electoral reform to make that more likely.
They also very clearly stated before the last election, that they would enter coalition talks with whoever was the largest party. They were repeatedly very clear about this. They have been very clear on this since they were founded in the late 80s.
Any voter who voted Lib Dem knew exactly what they were going to get. Or if they didn't, it's their own bloody fault. And they should stop whining and take responsibility for their own actions. This information was not hidden, or secret, or a surprise to anyone with even the vaguest knowledge. Our political system first of all needs better voters. Before we can improve our politicians and political discourse, we need voters willing to at least take a tiny amount of their time to decide. If we don't want politics to be a beauty contest, then you have to stop voting for whoever performs best on telly and start devoting at least a few hours, every four years, to working out who we agree with.
They got into government based on the votes of people that they would never have got had the voters realised what could happen as a result of voting lib dem.
Anyone who didn't want the Conservatives in power had the choice to vote Labour, or some other party. If they chose to vote Lib Dem after Clegg had said he'd do a deal with whoever got the most seats, then they were obviously willing for that coalition to happen. That is the only interpretation the Lib Dems could take, short of asking each of their voters individually why they'd voted for them. I have zero sympathy.
Now I admit that the Lib Dems seem to have been attracting a 'none-of-the-above' protest vote before 2010. And a lot of that seems to have now shifted to UKIP. This is the interpretation that many pollsters I've read have put on the quite large number of 2010 Lib Dem voters who've now switched their alleigance to UKIP (or tell pollsters they have anyway). Well, if you don't want any of the two bigger parties, why not vote Monster Raving Looney, or Respect or Socialist Labour or something? Because the Lib Dems have been talking about coalition for their entire history - and took it at the first opportunity (as they always said they would). Also how are the politicians supposed to interpret votes, if people are going to switch their votes from a socially liberal, economically centrist, massively pro EU party to a socially conservative, anti-EU one? As I said, people have got to take some responsibility for the entirely predictable consequences of their own actions.
personally speaking I think a system without any party whips where the MPs really do represent the interests of their constituency rather than those of their party would be one of the best things that could happen to this country, even if PR is completely forgotten.
This system would only be workable if the electorate were willing to invest a lot more effort into politics than they currently seem to be willing to.
Having no whips also means it's much harder for the electorate to know what they're voting for. It's all very well to talk about MPs acting on conscience, but in the system we currently have most people vote party, not MP. By voting party, they get to vote on a manifesto. That means the MPs then have the obligation to walk a tightrope between the voters who wanted the manifesto they voted for, and those who may know the MP, and have voted for them to use their conscience. There is no perfect system, but the downside of not whipping (and PR with constant coalitions) is that voters vote for one thing, and don't get to find out what they will actually get until after the election. Which is exactly the problem you're complaining about in your post.
I'm personally against PR and non-whipped MPs for this reason. However, if the main parties are unable to get more than 40% of the voters for one more election, I'll switch to voting for PR, because first past the post is too unfair if parties can get an overall majority with only 35% of the vote. Well only Labour can, due to the way our system was biased by the 97 boundary review (and cahnging demographics) - the Conservatives need about 39%, and Labour to get less than 32% (very roughly. Whereas Labour could theoretically get an overall majority on 36% each - well that's before Scotland went SNP. Who knows what'll happen now.
@ Vimes
"personally speaking I think a system without any party whips where the MPs really do represent the interests of their constituency rather than those of their party would be one of the best things that could happen to this country, even if PR is completely forgotten."
Thats impossible though isnt it. Not that it would be bad but it would mean the intolerant population of this country would have to accept differences in their own country. Can you imagine the media outbreak as rural MP's oppose excessive gun laws vs the city people? 2 different worlds in the same country and if represented would give more ammunition for parties to bash each other. Every party has its oddballs which is proven by some moving to UKIP. The problem is that the moderates are ignored and UKIP are branded by the few people with nutty views, even though they were acceptable in the major parties. Didnt one of the tory health people believe in astrology and homoeopathy?
And of course a single embarrassment about a politicians real feelings can brand the whole party (brown and the bigot comment). Without whips its hard to portray a safe image. And of course the safe image leads every party to look the same, and the others to look more radical/extreme than they actually are.
You get the impression sometimes that MPs just don't seem to understand technology, and that when it comes to Twitter in particular they forget that other people can read what they write...
https://twitter.com/KarlTurnerMP/status/587763576129122304
'Good luck with Grayling' - hardly an inspiring message or a reason to vote Labour is it?
Here we go again...
The Tories would give the security services the power they need.
Other parties are wary of giving offence, and upsetting those concerned about civil liberties.
But, he says, he has met the relatives of terrorist victims. He has had to make the judgment calls. And the Conservative party will not risk the nation’s security, he says.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2015/apr/14/election-2015-live-conservative-manifesto-david-cameron-right-to-buy#block-552ceb41e4b04b4dc25b7793