Or "Where's Wally", Parliamentary version....
If there is one policy, principle and philosophical stance that used to distinguish the Lib Dems from the other parties it is a firm attachment to Europe. But last week their coalition partner David Cameron pushed the UK dinghy away from the nearer European shores and drifted off on the long Eurosceptic journey to complete separation.Nick Clegg at first agreed and then demurred. "I'm for it.Oh no, I'm agin' it" he said of Mr Cameron's Euro brush off.
Today, when Mr Cameron came to attempt to justify his decision to the Commons, McAvity Clegg just wasn't there.
When Clegg and his party reneged on their cast iron promise to students to oppose rises in student fees it seemed that they had sunk as low as they could go. Not at all.
Now the Lib Dems have abandoned their keystone policy. The party of Europe is silent against the onslaught of the swivel eyed Tory right wing little Englander Euro-nutters. The same Euro-nutters who now believe they have won the day and have destroyed the Lib Dems raison d'etre.
And the leader of that party, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Nicholas Clegg MP, a man who has spent his political life in Europe and fighting for pro-European policies, was too cowardly to even attend the Parliamentary debate. Too afraid to face the well earned contempt of his peers and the derision of his colleagues. Too scared to give badly needed leadership to his party, he ran and he hid. Like a criminal. Like a fugitive.
While other Lib Dems stood and took defeat on the chin, and fought back with what spirit they could muster, their leader was in furtive hiding. He slunk out afterwards and tried to bluster his way through TV interviews without looking too shop-soiled, but he is damaged goods, no leader, and his party is, maybe fatally, wounded.
And what of the coalition? If it gets into trouble, will Nick Clegg stand up for it, for his Tory tormentors, for those who today called him and his party "lickspittles" while he, the brave party leader, cowered in the shadows, unable or unwilling to stand up for himself or his party or their, now tattered and torn, political principles.
Showing posts with label Lib Dem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lib Dem. Show all posts
Monday, 12 December 2011
Wednesday, 19 January 2011
Health Service Reel
An interesting post over at Carons Musings. The Lib Dems have lined up behind the Tory rehash of the NHS in England, but Caron's not convinced. She raises quite a number of reservations, many of which have been raised by Labour during the debate so far.
I'm not surprised that Caron is leery about her coalitions suppport for these changes. They seem to be, at the least, a very big gamble with the English NHS. IMO they are a serious first step to the creation of a health sector in the national economy, i.e.turning the Health into an industry. Whether the changes will work to deliver as good (never mind better) services to the people of England seems not to have been considered, such considerations being subordinate to the ToryDems' neoconservative beliefs.
They also raise the intriguing question of whither the Scottish Lib Dems. With a Holyrood election in the offing, will we see equivalent proposals in the Scottish Lib Dem Manifesto for the Scottish Elections in May?
The Lib Dems are engaged in a coalition waltz with the Conservatives at Westminster. Will Tavish and Anabell be tempted to take the floor for a Combined Scottish NHS Reel? If not, why not?
P.S. 17:20 It seems that the good Dr Death agrees with me on the marketisation elements of this bill.
I'm not surprised that Caron is leery about her coalitions suppport for these changes. They seem to be, at the least, a very big gamble with the English NHS. IMO they are a serious first step to the creation of a health sector in the national economy, i.e.turning the Health into an industry. Whether the changes will work to deliver as good (never mind better) services to the people of England seems not to have been considered, such considerations being subordinate to the ToryDems' neoconservative beliefs.
They also raise the intriguing question of whither the Scottish Lib Dems. With a Holyrood election in the offing, will we see equivalent proposals in the Scottish Lib Dem Manifesto for the Scottish Elections in May?
The Lib Dems are engaged in a coalition waltz with the Conservatives at Westminster. Will Tavish and Anabell be tempted to take the floor for a Combined Scottish NHS Reel? If not, why not?
P.S. 17:20 It seems that the good Dr Death agrees with me on the marketisation elements of this bill.
Wednesday, 15 December 2010
Give us a break, Nick
It's reported that the writ for the Oldham and Saddleworth by-election will be moved tomorrow - by the Lib Dems!
What's unusual about that? you may ask: well, it was a Labour seat and usually the sitting party gets to move the writ and choose the date of the election. Not that "constitutional experts" are saying that the Lib Dems are doing anything "wrong" within our ancient, unwritten and ramshackle "constitution". It's just unusual. It hasn't happened in my lifeteime.
So why are they doing it? Why have a by-election on the 13th of Januray...virtually in the Festive Season, in the depth of winter and with the weather we've been having?
Suspicion falls on the students: they'll be off home for the break and not organised to oppose the Lib Dem campaign.
Can it be as simple as that?
Anyone else got a better idea?
What's unusual about that? you may ask: well, it was a Labour seat and usually the sitting party gets to move the writ and choose the date of the election. Not that "constitutional experts" are saying that the Lib Dems are doing anything "wrong" within our ancient, unwritten and ramshackle "constitution". It's just unusual. It hasn't happened in my lifeteime.
So why are they doing it? Why have a by-election on the 13th of Januray...virtually in the Festive Season, in the depth of winter and with the weather we've been having?
Suspicion falls on the students: they'll be off home for the break and not organised to oppose the Lib Dem campaign.
Can it be as simple as that?
Anyone else got a better idea?
Monday, 13 December 2010
Whither the Social Liberals?
About three years ago I became acquainted with two Liberal Democrat activists. It was the first time I had any close contact with anyone who actually identified themselves as Lib Dem, and I was keen to understand what made them tick.
As I got to know them better I was puzzled: their differences on political issues and political language was quite marked. When I asked one of them why, I got the answer
Now, at least since the 2010 General Election, it has become a lot clearer. The "Orange Bookers" (Clegg, Huhne, Laws, Alexander...and a few others) are disciples of the 19th Century Liberal laissez-faire doctrine that markets are supreme: they are wise and are guided by a "hidden hand". Markets know best, they must not be interfered with, governments should let events take their course. It was this nonsense that allowed the administration of Liberal Prime Minister Lord John Russell (Russell himself gets less of the blame) to let the Irish Famine of the 1840s escalate into a historic tragedy. Millions died and the rest emigrated. Many of Ireland's current problems can be traced to the aftermath of this disgraceful episode in our joint history.
The parallels (and the historical links) between "Orange Book" Liberalism and late 20th Century Thatcherism are clear. Just like Thatcher and Osborne, the "Orange Book" Liberal Democrats are Manchester School/Chicago School market disciples. They have the same faith. They speak the same language and they believe the same things.Which is why Clegg et al have settled so snugly into the ToryDem coalition: they (if not the rest of their party cohorts, and certainly not Lib Dem voters) have found their natural home.
When the question is raised: why did the Lib Dems roll over on the economy? why did they roll over on tuition fees and so many other right wing policies?, the answer is clear: they (at least the party leadership) always wanted to and always would have, given the chance.
That's the "Economic Liberal Democrats", of course. What about the "Social Liberal Democrats"? The question now becomes: what will they do now that they have been betrayed by the Orange Book squad? How can they reconcile their view that a society needs a conscience with the Thatcherite/Orange Book belief that "...there is no such thing as society..."?
If they believe that the coalition and Nick Clegg will deliver progressive social policy they are fooling themselves. Their problem is: what do they do about it?
Whither, indeed, the Social Liberals?
As I got to know them better I was puzzled: their differences on political issues and political language was quite marked. When I asked one of them why, I got the answer
"He's an Economic Liberal Democrat".TBH, I wasn't much enlightened by this exchange. I had heard of the "Orange Book" grouping within the party, but I hadn't paid much attention.
"And you?", I asked.
"I'm a Social Liberal Democrat".
Now, at least since the 2010 General Election, it has become a lot clearer. The "Orange Bookers" (Clegg, Huhne, Laws, Alexander...and a few others) are disciples of the 19th Century Liberal laissez-faire doctrine that markets are supreme: they are wise and are guided by a "hidden hand". Markets know best, they must not be interfered with, governments should let events take their course. It was this nonsense that allowed the administration of Liberal Prime Minister Lord John Russell (Russell himself gets less of the blame) to let the Irish Famine of the 1840s escalate into a historic tragedy. Millions died and the rest emigrated. Many of Ireland's current problems can be traced to the aftermath of this disgraceful episode in our joint history.
The parallels (and the historical links) between "Orange Book" Liberalism and late 20th Century Thatcherism are clear. Just like Thatcher and Osborne, the "Orange Book" Liberal Democrats are Manchester School/Chicago School market disciples. They have the same faith. They speak the same language and they believe the same things.Which is why Clegg et al have settled so snugly into the ToryDem coalition: they (if not the rest of their party cohorts, and certainly not Lib Dem voters) have found their natural home.
When the question is raised: why did the Lib Dems roll over on the economy? why did they roll over on tuition fees and so many other right wing policies?, the answer is clear: they (at least the party leadership) always wanted to and always would have, given the chance.
That's the "Economic Liberal Democrats", of course. What about the "Social Liberal Democrats"? The question now becomes: what will they do now that they have been betrayed by the Orange Book squad? How can they reconcile their view that a society needs a conscience with the Thatcherite/Orange Book belief that "...there is no such thing as society..."?
If they believe that the coalition and Nick Clegg will deliver progressive social policy they are fooling themselves. Their problem is: what do they do about it?
Whither, indeed, the Social Liberals?
Tuesday, 22 June 2010
Dr Dracula and the Lib Dem Blood Bank
Memo to my Lib Dem friends:
If you invite Dr. Dracula to perform the operation, don't complain if he drains your blood in the process.
During the election campaign both Labour and Tories used the formula that they "had no plans to increase VAT". Labour probably meant it, and would have worked hard to avoid increasing VAT. The Tories obviously did not mean it, as George Osborne has shown by his enthusiastic raising of VAT from 17.5% to 20%, a huge hike.
But the Lib Dems were adamant: they would not raise VAT. It was and is a regressive tax, it hits the poor much harder than it hits the rich. If you earn £200 a week you will spend all of it on subsistence. If VAT goes up by 2.5% it takes an immediate 2.5% out of your pocket, and if you spend all of your income just to survive, then it is a very hard hit indeed. All of which was true then and is true now.
So who should we blame for the VAT increase? The Tories are the Tories, and the nasty party can be expected to act nastily. That's not to excuse, but to explain. If you invite Dr. Dracula to perform the operation, don't complain if he drains your blood in the process.
It's the Lib Dems that have most questions to answer: they opposed VAT increases with a vehemence that was wonderful to behold. Now they embrace it with exactly the same enthusiasm.
Simon Hughes, Vince Cable, even Nick Clegg, they all looked very uncomfortable as Harriet Harman challenged Lib Dem MPs to vote for the budget with its enormous benefits cuts and VAT rises. The question is: will the MPsfollow their leaders into the Tory lobby in the budget votes, or will they follow their conscience and their election promises and vote it down?
And as the Lib Dem blood drains away, will the Tories fatten on the feast...?
If you invite Dr. Dracula to perform the operation, don't complain if he drains your blood in the process.
George Osborne
Lib Dem Chancellor
During the election campaign both Labour and Tories used the formula that they "had no plans to increase VAT". Labour probably meant it, and would have worked hard to avoid increasing VAT. The Tories obviously did not mean it, as George Osborne has shown by his enthusiastic raising of VAT from 17.5% to 20%, a huge hike.
But the Lib Dems were adamant: they would not raise VAT. It was and is a regressive tax, it hits the poor much harder than it hits the rich. If you earn £200 a week you will spend all of it on subsistence. If VAT goes up by 2.5% it takes an immediate 2.5% out of your pocket, and if you spend all of your income just to survive, then it is a very hard hit indeed. All of which was true then and is true now.
So who should we blame for the VAT increase? The Tories are the Tories, and the nasty party can be expected to act nastily. That's not to excuse, but to explain. If you invite Dr. Dracula to perform the operation, don't complain if he drains your blood in the process.
It's the Lib Dems that have most questions to answer: they opposed VAT increases with a vehemence that was wonderful to behold. Now they embrace it with exactly the same enthusiasm.
Simon Hughes, Vince Cable, even Nick Clegg, they all looked very uncomfortable as Harriet Harman challenged Lib Dem MPs to vote for the budget with its enormous benefits cuts and VAT rises. The question is: will the MPsfollow their leaders into the Tory lobby in the budget votes, or will they follow their conscience and their election promises and vote it down?
And as the Lib Dem blood drains away, will the Tories fatten on the feast...?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
