I think there is a base for a liberal party in thic country. I do agree that party has to connect with it's base to be secure, but I don't think a wipe out a cert - a week, long time and all that.

As to the Lib Dems there was an interesting analysis of the party on (...) Analysis on R4. I'm definitely not a Orange book...

Well I had kinda worked out you were on the left of the party, Peter

I'm not anti-Lib Dem per se. I actually voted for them in the 2005 GE and in 2010 had decided to vote for them before going back to the Socialist Labour candidate. In 2010, I admired a lot in their manifesto - the mansion tax, bringing CGT rates more into line with normal Income Tax rates, etc - a kind of joint approach to tackling the budget deficit by both some cuts and some well-targetted tax rises on those with a lot of money/assets. However, any shred of redistributive economic policy has been jettisoned in favour of the Tories' regressive policies.

As Maunder pointed out, the Lib Dems do seem to have had some mitigating effect on the illiberal instincts of the Tory party on some social policy (although I think Cameron himself is quite socially liberal anyway). But the policiy areas that I've been focusing on are the economic and public sector ones - and in that respect, the Lib Dems have [shamefully IMO] allowed a right wing, beyond-Thatcherism agenda to be ploughed through. Apart from the core policies on taxation & spending, I've not heard even a whimper of dissent from the Lib Dems over the NHS reforms (which simply pave the way for creeping privatisation) or the schools system changes, which look hamfisted and ill thought-out at the very least - not to say increasing the opportunity for organisations with 'agendas' to hijack the curriculum taught. I won't dwell on University funding...

To an outsider, it looks like the Parliamentary Party have become autocratic in their dealings and the grass roots of the party are being ignored. I can appreciate the euphoria of finally landing a part in government meant a lot of people were happy to hold their nose and get on with it but now, as the cuts start to bite and the Government's agenda becomes ever clearer, I foresee trouble ahead for the Lib Dem hierarchy. Already we've had 88 Lib Dem councillors condemn the coalition policies in an open letter and a number have either defected or resigned.

As far as the electorate goes, the Lib Dems are going to haemorrhage a lot of voters who moved to them from Labour because the Lib Dems had a more progressive and liberal manifesto. These are predominantly toward the Midlands/North of the country and the swing to the Lib Dems caused a number of lost seats for Labour (in the Tories' favour). Additionally, the Lib Dems have traditionally picked up a lot of soft-Tory voters further south. Many defected to Cameron's party in 2010, presumably because they saw [erroneously, as it turns out] Cameron's Tory Party to be more moderate. Will the Lib Dems be able to tempt them back? Or will these voters just conclude that the Lib Dems are little different from the Tories in reality so what's the point?

---

 the Lib Dems have [shamefully IMO] allowed a right wing, beyond-Thatcherism agenda to be ploughed through.

The Coalition Government have received some powerful support for their fiscal policies:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359448/George-Osborne-US-Treasury-boss-Tim-Geithner-backs-austerity-drive.html

"Barack Obama’s treasury secretary Tim Geithner said the Government’s austerity drive was ‘very good’ and praised the Chancellor’s ‘remarkable’ efforts to turn around the economy." continues...

Seems like Geithner is having a dig at his own boss there.

And in answer to those who don't like the cuts, we simply cannot afford a public sector which is taking more than 50% of GDP to fund.

---

As far as the electorate goes, the Lib Dems are going to haemorrhage a lot of voters who moved to them from Labour because the Lib Dems had a more progressive and liberal manifesto. These are predominantly toward the Midlands/North of the country and the swing to the Lib Dems caused a number of lost seats for Labour (in the Tories' favour).

Again, I think your analysis is wrong there Saint, especially for my region, the Midlands (where the Liberals have never done well in any case).

Most people don't care whether policies are what is considered "progressive" or not - they just want a good standard of living and security, combined with decent public services which don't cost too much. It is only political anoraks like us who analyse whether policies are "progressive" or not.

The West Midlands has never relied on large scale public sector employment (unlike the North) - the West Midlands is still a private sector manufacturing and distribution region.

---

As far as the electorate goes, the Lib Dems are going to haemorrhage a lot of voters who moved to them from Labour because the Lib Dems had a more progressive and liberal manifesto. These are predominantly toward the Midlands/North of the country and the swing to the Lib Dems caused a number of lost seats for Labour (in the Tories' favour).

Again, I think your analysis is wrong there Saint, especially for my region, the Midlands (where the Liberals have never done well in any case).

Most people don't care whether policies are what is considered "progressive" or not - they just want a good standard of living and security, combined with decent public services which don't cost too much. It is only political anoraks like us who analyse whether policies are "progressive" or not.

The West Midlands has never relied on large scale public sector employment (unlike the North) - the West Midlands is still a private sector manufacturing and distribution region.

Maybe 'progressive' is indeed too anorak an expression, but it's one that is a simple, catch-all way to sum the policy sentiment up and, on here, we understand what it means, so that's why I use it.

In the real world, I disagree with your simplistic summary of what people want. Different people want different things. Some do just want what you say. Others - many others - whilst not politicos, do want to see policies that are broadly leftish (progressive ) and a hell of a lot of these people have, over the past couple of elections, shifted from Labour to Lib Dem, because the headline policies promised by the Lib Dems fitted their beliefs better than a Labour Party which they felt had let them down.

This has happened in both the North and Midlands, where there were swings away from Labour, but mostly to the Lib Dems, and in a number of cases the Tory Party picked up the seat despite not really seeing much of a swing from Labour to themselves.

---

Maybe 'progressive' is indeed too anorak an expression, but it's one that is a simple, catch-all way to sum the policy sentiment up and, on here, we understand what it means, so that's why I use it.

In the real world, I disagree with your simplistic summary of what people want. Different people want different things. Some do just want what you say. Others - many others - whilst not politicos, do want to see policies that are broadly leftish (progressive ) and a hell of a lot of these people have, over the past couple of elections, shifted from Labour to Lib Dem, because the headline policies promised by the Lib Dems fitted their beliefs better than a Labour Party which they felt had let them down.

This has happened in both the North and Midlands, where there were swings away from Labour, but mostly to the Lib Dems, and in a number of cases the Tory Party picked up the seat despite not really seeing much of a swing from Labour to themselves.

I still think you are incorrect where the Midlands are concerned, because we did see a direct swing from Labour to Conservative in this region. What you say is no doubt correct for most of the North however.

I really don't see why people should care whether policies are "progressive" or not - if the economy is thriving and everybody is doing better (hypothetical at the moment I know), then why would they care if policies were seen as "progressive"?

It is certainly true that as the economy recovered from the recession of the late 70s, early 80s, most people voted on perceptions of increasing standards of living (i.e. for Thatcher), despite her policies being "regressive" according to the left.

---

The Coalition Government have received some powerful support for their fiscal policies:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359448/George-Osborne-US-Treasury-boss-Tim-Geithner-backs-austerity-drive.html

"Barack Obama’s treasury secretary Tim Geithner said the Government’s austerity drive was ‘very good’ and praised the Chancellor’s ‘remarkable’ efforts to turn around the economy." continues...

Seems like Geithner is having a dig at his own boss there.

And in answer to those who don't like the cuts, we simply cannot afford a public sector which is taking more than 50% of GDP to fund.

Just because a former banker who's now a member of the US government supports something doesn't mean they're right.

And in answer to those who don't like the cuts, we simply cannot afford a public sector which is taking more than 50% of GDP to fund.

The coalition policies regarding education and the NHS have nothing to do with deficit reduction and everything to do with ideology-driven right-wing dogma.

Any change of such a scale as those proposed cost money in terms of implementation costs - that is an incontravertable fact. At a time when clinical, frontline staff numbers are being reduced due to budget constraints, it's nothing short of criminal to embark on such costly politically-motivated social experimentation.

Additionally, after putting a stop on funding the ongoing schools rebuilding programme, they then made £200m available for their experiment with free schools. Depriving children in traditionally-run schools just to ensure their experimentation succeeded. All for dogmatically ideological reasons.

If the deficit reduction is so bloody important, then they should be devoting all their attentions to it - and indeed how to reinvogorate the productive parts of the private sector - rather than dicking about with politically-motivated pet schemes.

---

I really don't see why people should care whether policies are "progressive" or not - if the economy is thriving and everybody is doing better (hypothetical at the moment I know), then why would they care if policies were seen as "progressive"?

Because a whole lot of people realise that the game is tilted to allow a few to do very much better than the many and they don't want this to go unredressed. I know you and others who share your political beliefs can't get your head around that, but you do need to accept that many people can and do believe in that notion.

It is certainly true that as the economy recovered from the recession of the late 70s, early 80s, most people voted on perceptions of increasing standards of living (i.e. for Thatcher), despite her policies being "regressive" according to the left.

For many people, there was no increase in the standard of living. But enough people enjoyed the fruits of a SE-orientated boom for those living in the industrial wastelands of the north to be an irrelevence in the wider political scheme of things.

---

Maybe 'progressive' is indeed too anorak an expression, but it's one that is a simple, catch-all way to sum the policy sentiment up and, on here, we understand what it means, so that's why I use it.

In the real world, I disagree with your simplistic summary of what people want. Different people want different things. Some do just want what you say. Others - many others - whilst not politicos, do want to see policies that are broadly leftish (progressive ) and a hell of a lot of these people have, over the past couple of elections, shifted from Labour to Lib Dem, because the headline policies promised by the Lib Dems fitted their beliefs better than a Labour Party which they felt had let them down.

This has happened in both the North and Midlands, where there were swings away from Labour, but mostly to the Lib Dems, and in a number of cases the Tory Party picked up the seat despite not really seeing much of a swing from Labour to themselves.

I still think you are incorrect where the Midlands are concerned, because we did see a direct swing from Labour to Conservative in this region. What you say is no doubt correct for most of the North however.

I really don't see why people should care whether policies are "progressive" or not - if the economy is thriving and everybody is doing better (hypothetical at the moment I know), then why would they care if policies were seen as "progressive"?

It is certainly true that as the economy recovered from the recession of the late 70s, early 80s, most people voted on perceptions of increasing standards of living (i.e. for Thatcher), despite her policies being "regressive" according to the left.

The swing in the East Midlands was from Labour to the Conservatives. The LD have no seats whatsoever!

---

The Coalition Government have received some powerful support for their fiscal policies:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359448/George-Osborne-US-Treasury-boss-Tim-Geithner-backs-austerity-drive.html

"Barack Obama’s treasury secretary Tim Geithner said the Government’s austerity drive was ‘very good’ and praised the Chancellor’s ‘remarkable’ efforts to turn around the economy." continues...

Seems like Geithner is having a dig at his own boss there.

And in answer to those who don't like the cuts, we simply cannot afford a public sector which is taking more than 50% of GDP to fund.

Just because a former banker who's now a member of the US government supports something doesn't mean they're right.

And in answer to those who don't like the cuts, we simply cannot afford a public sector which is taking more than 50% of GDP to fund.

The coalition policies regarding education and the NHS have nothing to do with deficit reduction and everything to do with ideology-driven right-wing dogma.

The left are just as idealogy driven as the right however much you dress it up.

---

The Coalition Government have received some powerful support for their fiscal policies:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1359448/George-Osborne-US-Treasury-boss-Tim-Geithner-backs-austerity-drive.html

"Barack Obama’s treasury secretary Tim Geithner said the Government’s austerity drive was ‘very good’ and praised the Chancellor’s ‘remarkable’ efforts to turn around the economy." continues...

Seems like Geithner is having a dig at his own boss there.

And in answer to those who don't like the cuts, we simply cannot afford a public sector which is taking more than 50% of GDP to fund.

Just because a former banker who's now a member of the US government supports something doesn't mean they're right.

And in answer to those who don't like the cuts, we simply cannot afford a public sector which is taking more than 50% of GDP to fund.

The coalition policies regarding education and the NHS have nothing to do with deficit reduction and everything to do with ideology-driven right-wing dogma.

The left are just as idealogy driven as the right however much you dress it up.

Good point Charmhills - to accuse politicians of being ideological is equivalent to accusing a pianist of being musical. It is a very odd line of criticism.

The point is, the right and the left have different ideas on how to deliver what is best for society - the Conservatives are not reforming the NHS or education on a whim, they are doing it because they believe that better outcomes will result for a given input. Naturally, only time will tell whether they are correct, but for me, anything which increases diversity of provision or supply has to be good.

---

The left are just as idealogy driven as the right however much you dress it up.

Good point Charmhills - to accuse politicians of being ideological is equivalent to accusing a pianist of being musical. It is a very odd line of criticism.

 

I wasn't being critical of anyone being ideological - indeed in the past I've mourned the apparent lack of ideology in modern party politics.

Let's take what I said back a few steps.

First, I criticised the [Parliamentary, at least] Lib Dems for abandoning their own ideologies in favour of following a "right-wing, beyond-Thatcherism agenda".

You then attempted an overly-simplified rebuttal by saying that cuts were needed.

I then explained that, cuts aside, the Lib Dems had supported the policies to instigate massive changes in both the NHS and education system, which had nothing to do with cuts and everything to do with right-wing ideology and dogma. The criticism I made was that, at a time of fiscal Mother-Hubbardness when IMO all focus should be on addressing the deficit and rejuvenating the economy, implementing such changes, at not inconsiderable cost, is unwise - especially when the only reason is pure political ideology.

Duane then stumbles into the fray with a typically 'miss the point' comment and you claim that I've some kind of silly billy for criticising the Tories for having ideology.

Again....

---

I heard a rumour a while ago that New Labour was going to be renamed Progressive Labour

---

The left are just as idealogy driven as the right however much you dress it up.

Good point Charmhills - to accuse politicians of being ideological is equivalent to accusing a pianist of being musical. It is a very odd line of criticism.

 

I wasn't being critical of anyone being ideological - indeed in the past I've mourned the apparent lack of ideology in modern party politics.

Let's take what I said back a few steps.

First, I criticised the [Parliamentary, at least] Lib Dems for abandoning their own ideologies in favour of following a "right-wing, beyond-Thatcherism agenda".

You then attempted an overly-simplified rebuttal by saying that cuts were needed.

I then explained that, cuts aside, the Lib Dems had supported the policies to instigate massive changes in both the NHS and education system, which had nothing to do with cuts and everything to do with right-wing ideology and dogma. The criticism I made was that, at a time of fiscal Mother-Hubbardness when IMO all focus should be on addressing the deficit and rejuvenating the economy, implementing such changes, at not inconsiderable cost, is unwise - especially when the only reason is pure political ideology.

Duane then stumbles into the fray with a typically 'miss the point' comment and you claim that I've some kind of silly billy for criticising the Tories for having ideology.

Again....

OK Saint - I confess to having indulged in a little caprice at your expense.

---

MORI

Con 33% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 13% Lab Lead 10%

---

Political opinion polls are nonsense at the moment - does anyone seriously thing Hapless Ed could be a future Prime Minister?

Of course people want to kick the Government over spending cuts - despite the fact that they originated in the failed policies of BallsBrown.

Anyway, I would like to see an opinion poll on the HRA - I would guess a big majority would wish to dump it and the Strasbourg Court which has become a complete joke in recent years. Here is the latest bit of Human Rights idiocy:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360046/European-human-rights-Rent-arrests-tenant-evicted-rules-judge.html

If you are a tenant on benefits, you now have carte blanche to spend the rent on cigarettes, booze and drugs, instead of paying the landlord.

If you are a foreign criminal, all you have to do is bang up a British woman to avoid deportation.

---

Last night Tory MP Philip Davies said: ‘It seems to me that the courts always find in favour of the human rights of people who are doing something wrong. We have got to change that balance, it is getting completely out of hand.


Yes it sure is!!!!

---

MORI

Con 33% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 13% Lab Lead 10%

 Shockingly bad polling for the Tories, not even a full year into government. Following the embarassing debacle of getting British citizens out of Libya, one can only assume they will poll even lower in the next one.

I hadn't realised just how unpopular they had become - Labour have been so quiet recently and the new leader so uncharismatic that I just assumed the Tories would still be in the lead 

The Tories desperately need to do something to regain the support of the country or, when the cuts really start to bite, well, the mind boggles just how unpopular they will become.....

 

---

MORI

Con 33% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 13% Lab Lead 10%

 Shockingly bad polling for the Tories, not even a full year into government. Following the embarassing debacle of getting British citizens out of Libya, one can only assume they will poll even lower in the next one.

I hadn't realised just how unpopular they had become - Labour have been so quiet recently and the new leader so uncharismatic that I just assumed the Tories would still be in the lead 

The Tories desperately need to do something to regain the support of the country or, when the cuts really start to bite, well, the mind boggles just how unpopular they will become.....

 

Other polls have them in the high 30''s Tories that is.

---

MORI

Con 33% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 13% Lab Lead 10%

 Shockingly bad polling for the Tories, not even a full year into government. Following the embarassing debacle of getting British citizens out of Libya, one can only assume they will poll even lower in the next one.

I hadn't realised just how unpopular they had become - Labour have been so quiet recently and the new leader so uncharismatic that I just assumed the Tories would still be in the lead 

The Tories desperately need to do something to regain the support of the country or, when the cuts really start to bite, well, the mind boggles just how unpopular they will become.....

 

Other polls have them in the high 30''s Tories that is.

Yeah - I'm sure there is a fair spread depending on the poll. Still, I haven't really paid much attention to the polls since the election - mainly because our political parties are very different over here, but I really am shocked at how badly the Tories are doing and this can only get worse when the effects of the cuts are felt, coupled with the VAT increase and as a reaction to the debacle of getting British citizens out of Libya.

How low can they go?!

---

MORI

Con 33% Lab 43% Lib-Dem 13% Lab Lead 10%

 Shockingly bad polling for the Tories, not even a full year into government. Following the embarassing debacle of getting British citizens out of Libya, one can only assume they will poll even lower in the next one.

I hadn't realised just how unpopular they had become - Labour have been so quiet recently and the new leader so uncharismatic that I just assumed the Tories would still be in the lead 

The Tories desperately need to do something to regain the support of the country or, when the cuts really start to bite, well, the mind boggles just how unpopular they will become.....

 

I am cool about it - it is all completely meaningless at this stage of the game. Although, I am annoyed at how inept the Coalition has been at getting across the reason for and the need for the cuts.

---