RugbyRebels

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:The other annoyance with Labour getting stuck into locking down power on the left for a decade to come is they have no details around any policy area. They have some broad values in some areas and broad avoidance on Brexit, but nothing is getting fleshed out in terms of what they actually want to do and how they'd pay for it

There's no value to them in doing that now anyway. Provide specifics and you provide something to be attacked on. Even vague details get turned into binding promises by the opposition. It's far more politic to keep your powder dry until there's an election and a manifesto.

Puja

.....

Digby wrote:The other annoyance with Labour getting stuck into locking down power on the left for a decade to come is they have no details around any policy area. They have some broad values in some areas and broad avoidance on Brexit, but nothing is getting fleshed out in terms of what they actually want to do and how they'd pay for it

Change Labour for Lib Dems and ‘locking down power’ to, well, anything but and it’d be equally true.

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:The other annoyance with Labour getting stuck into locking down power on the left for a decade to come is they have no details around any policy area. They have some broad values in some areas and broad avoidance on Brexit, but nothing is getting fleshed out in terms of what they actually want to do and how they'd pay for it

There's no value to them in doing that now anyway. Provide specifics and you provide something to be attacked on. Even vague details get turned into binding promises by the opposition. It's far more politic to keep your powder dry until there's an election and a manifesto.

Puja

.....

Hah! I think that naivety went out of the window after the first few times he was punished for trying to give nuanced and honest answers by very select excerpts forming the next attack. Today's Labour is less straight talking and more the hard-earned lesson of "Anything you do say may be taken down and used out of context in evidence against you."

Puja

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:The other annoyance with Labour getting stuck into locking down power on the left for a decade to come is they have no details around any policy area. They have some broad values in some areas and broad avoidance on Brexit, but nothing is getting fleshed out in terms of what they actually want to do and how they'd pay for it

Change Labour for Lib Dems and ‘locking down power’ to, well, anything but and it’d be equally true.

The Lib Dems have put out some actual detail, notably on education, an area which sees Labour hoping to cling to votes on the back of reducing student debt even though they are now admitting if pushed they can't possibly afford a policy Corbyn advocated with no idea what it'd cost

It's not going to make much difference mind, there's about thirty Lib Dem voters left in the country. I doff my cap to the other 29

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:The other annoyance with Labour getting stuck into locking down power on the left for a decade to come is they have no details around any policy area. They have some broad values in some areas and broad avoidance on Brexit, but nothing is getting fleshed out in terms of what they actually want to do and how they'd pay for it

Change Labour for Lib Dems and ‘locking down power’ to, well, anything but and it’d be equally true.

The Lib Dems have put out some actual detail, notably on education, an area which sees Labour hoping to cling to votes on the back of reducing student debt even though they are now admitting if pushed they can't possibly afford a policy Corbyn advocated with no idea what it'd cost

It's not going to make much difference mind, there's about thirty Lib Dem voters left in the country. I doff my cap to the other 29

The student debt thing is ridiculous. Never mind that Corbyn never actually promised to repeal existing debt and for some reason had to spend about 2 months defending breaking a promise he hadn't made, the whole thing is an accounting trick. Two-thirds of them will be written off, so the cost is still there, but just deferred down the line to a future government, while causing financial stress for low-earning graduates.

Mind, Lib Dems are brave if they think they can get traction of anything to do with students, given recent history.

Puja

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: Change Labour for Lib Dems and ‘locking down power’ to, well, anything but and it’d be equally true.

The Lib Dems have put out some actual detail, notably on education, an area which sees Labour hoping to cling to votes on the back of reducing student debt even though they are now admitting if pushed they can't possibly afford a policy Corbyn advocated with no idea what it'd cost

It's not going to make much difference mind, there's about thirty Lib Dem voters left in the country. I doff my cap to the other 29

The student debt thing is ridiculous. Never mind that Corbyn never actually promised to repeal existing debt and for some reason had to spend about 2 months defending breaking a promise he hadn't made, the whole thing is an accounting trick. Two-thirds of them will be written off, so the cost is still there, but just deferred down the line to a future government, while causing financial stress for low-earning graduates.

Mind, Lib Dems are brave if they think they can get traction of anything to do with students, given recent history.

Puja

Fair enough, the Lib Dems may have put some detailed policies together but, like the local nutter on my street who stands for the Green Party in parish elections on promises that she will ban plastic and non-electric cars from the town, nobody seems to be taking any notice.
The issue that Corbyn got himself into on existing student loans is all of his own making for making up policy on the hoof and isn’t any different to how all politicians, and particularly party leaders, are treated.

Corbyn and student debt debacle shows the rare downside of not putting detail on your policy, he did say something along the lines of we'll deal with it, stayed silent whilst people filled in the blanks boosting prospective voters and then tried to claim he'd never given details having taken the benefits of people thinking he was going to help them

Mellsblue wrote:

Puja wrote:

Digby wrote:
The Lib Dems have put out some actual detail, notably on education, an area which sees Labour hoping to cling to votes on the back of reducing student debt even though they are now admitting if pushed they can't possibly afford a policy Corbyn advocated with no idea what it'd cost

It's not going to make much difference mind, there's about thirty Lib Dem voters left in the country. I doff my cap to the other 29

The student debt thing is ridiculous. Never mind that Corbyn never actually promised to repeal existing debt and for some reason had to spend about 2 months defending breaking a promise he hadn't made, the whole thing is an accounting trick. Two-thirds of them will be written off, so the cost is still there, but just deferred down the line to a future government, while causing financial stress for low-earning graduates.

Mind, Lib Dems are brave if they think they can get traction of anything to do with students, given recent history.

Puja

Fair enough, the Lib Dems may have put some detailed policies together but, like the local nutter on my street who stands for the Green Party in parish elections on promises that she will ban plastic and non-electric cars from the town, nobody seems to be taking any notice.
The issue that Corbyn got himself into on existing student loans is all of his own making for making up policy on the hoof and isn’t any different to how all politicians, and particularly party leaders, are treated.

It's only some, the Libs are hardly ready with details across the board. Layla Moran who looks after education for them is perhaps their shining light however.

The problem the Lib Dem’s have is a lack of media penetration. Vince is part of that issue in my view, but it’s not helped by a polarisation in politics.

Sandydragon wrote:The problem the Lib Dem’s have is a lack of media penetration. Vince is part of that issue in my view, but it’s not helped by a polarisation in politics.

Vince barely wants the job and it shows, he's also a lesser leader than Ashdown and Clegg, and a worse orator than both those and Kennedy, he's no worse than the last chap but that's a laughably low bar.

Then yes polarisation is an issue with the electorate still reacting badly to the coalition, and there's still the issue of FPP

Given the current focus on Thornberry, thought I'd point out that she's under attack in the New Statesman for repeating Russian pro-Assad propaganda and smearing Syrian journalists and humans right activists as proscribed terrorist organisations. We'll see if anyone else picks up on that, and I haven't double checked on the status of the NS' claims, but for now its nice to see she's joining the general ranks of incompetence and cosying up to nastiness that is the average British politician.

I do get brexit is a big thing, indeed a huge thing. But whether it's down to brexit or some bollocks about EU sticking its nose in where it's not warranted I don't know, but it should both damn and shame the Tories they've voted in support of Orban

Yep. You’d think they’d frame it as they were voting against EU interference in a member country’s democratic institutions/processes/whatever but from what I’ve read they’ve not even bothered to pretend it’s because of that, very shakey, reason.
Tugendhat’s call for a generational shift becomes yet more relevant and correct.

Mellsblue wrote:Yep. You’d think they’d frame it as they were voting against EU interference in a member country’s democratic institutions/processes/whatever but from what I’ve read they’ve not even bothered to pretend it’s because of that, very shakey, reason.
Tugendhat’s call for a generational shift becomes yet more relevant and correct.

Probably won't come fast enough. I think Father Time and changing social attitudes is likely to be very rough on this iteration of the Tory party.

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Yep. You’d think they’d frame it as they were voting against EU interference in a member country’s democratic institutions/processes/whatever but from what I’ve read they’ve not even bothered to pretend it’s because of that, very shakey, reason.
Tugendhat’s call for a generational shift becomes yet more relevant and correct.

Probably won't come fast enough. I think Father Time and changing social attitudes is likely to be very rough on this iteration of the Tory party.

Even the claim of EU interference is at best a rubbish one

Digby wrote:

Peat wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Yep. You’d think they’d frame it as they were voting against EU interference in a member country’s democratic institutions/processes/whatever but from what I’ve read they’ve not even bothered to pretend it’s because of that, very shakey, reason.
Tugendhat’s call for a generational shift becomes yet more relevant and correct.

Probably won't come fast enough. I think Father Time and changing social attitudes is likely to be very rough on this iteration of the Tory party.

Even the claim of EU interference is at best a rubbish one

As I alluded to. At least it would’ve/might’ve played better to eurosceptics who are sceptic because of the EU’s institutional failings rather than being racists or lovers of authoritarian regimes/‘strong’ men. All they’ve done is shot themselves in the both feet rather than just their far right foot.

It again shows the mess Labour are in when the Tories are barely even taking a hit for their support of Orban, it might even be Corbyn doesn't think we're supporting Orban enough as he tries to lead Hungary against the evils of the West

Digby wrote:It again shows the mess Labour are in when the Tories are barely even taking a hit for their support of Orban, it might even be Corbyn doesn't think we're supporting Orban enough as he tries to lead Hungary against the evils of the West

No, it shows the media for what it is, barefaced propaganda.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:It again shows the mess Labour are in when the Tories are barely even taking a hit for their support of Orban, it might even be Corbyn doesn't think we're supporting Orban enough as he tries to lead Hungary against the evils of the West

No, it shows the media for what it is, barefaced propaganda.

The Times had a well placed piece last week heavily criticising the Tories on just this subject. That Labour can't get away from process stories and onto matters of substance isn't entirely down to the media, it specifically is in part the incompetent leadership Labour suffers

In other news, the Lib Dems have ruled out future coalitions, raising the interesting question of what the hell is the point of them then.

Peat wrote:In other news, the Lib Dems have ruled out future coalitions, raising the interesting question of what the hell is the point of them then.

I thought the coalition government reasonably grown up but the voters hated it, so I can understand their reluctance. And as it happens right now there doesn't seem to be anyone they could form a coalition with, and too ruling out coalitions isn't for all time, it's just a next general election thing and/or current leadership

Good stuff from Vince today. He's not a fantastic orator but some of the hits he landed were very palpable.
I loved the characterisation of Brexiteers as either being....'Nutters, chancers or their conscripts'.

I paraphrase but not by much.

Digby wrote:

Peat wrote:In other news, the Lib Dems have ruled out future coalitions, raising the interesting question of what the hell is the point of them then.

I thought the coalition government reasonably grown up but the voters hated it, so I can understand their reluctance. And as it happens right now there doesn't seem to be anyone they could form a coalition with, and too ruling out coalitions isn't for all time, it's just a next general election thing and/or current leadership

The liberals suffered because they were the protest party and made promises they could not reasonably keep in government. Much of their base isn’t too far removed from labour voters so a coalition with labour would not have caused them as much damage as one with the conservatives. After years of being different and Nick Clegg sounding like someone fresh and different in the TV debates, they ended up looking very mainstream.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Peat wrote:In other news, the Lib Dems have ruled out future coalitions, raising the interesting question of what the hell is the point of them then.

I thought the coalition government reasonably grown up but the voters hated it, so I can understand their reluctance. And as it happens right now there doesn't seem to be anyone they could form a coalition with, and too ruling out coalitions isn't for all time, it's just a next general election thing and/or current leadership

The liberals suffered because they were the protest party and made promises they could not reasonably keep in government. Much of their base isn’t too far removed from labour voters so a coalition with labour would not have caused them as much damage as one with the conservatives. After years of being different and Nick Clegg sounding like someone fresh and different in the TV debates, they ended up looking very mainstream.

The realities of being in power. As David Laws will tell anyone who asks, most of the party would rather criticise from their moral high ground on the sidelines than actually have to make the difficult decisions. Counter to that, as you say, when you think you have no chance of getting your hands on the reins of power you make pledges/promises you don’t think you’ll be in a position of having to keep. If I’m going back to being critical, for a party that campaigns for PR they seem to take compromising to form a coalition particularly poorly.

Sandydragon wrote:

Digby wrote:

Peat wrote:In other news, the Lib Dems have ruled out future coalitions, raising the interesting question of what the hell is the point of them then.

I thought the coalition government reasonably grown up but the voters hated it, so I can understand their reluctance. And as it happens right now there doesn't seem to be anyone they could form a coalition with, and too ruling out coalitions isn't for all time, it's just a next general election thing and/or current leadership

The liberals suffered because they were the protest party and made promises they could not reasonably keep in government. Much of their base isn’t too far removed from labour voters so a coalition with labour would not have caused them as much damage as one with the conservatives. After years of being different and Nick Clegg sounding like someone fresh and different in the TV debates, they ended up looking very mainstream.

I think they suffered because they were naive and got taken for a ride in the negotiations. It's bad enough to break one of your major campaign promises and sell out a good proportion of the people who voted for you, but to sell it just for a referendum on electoral reform. A referendum where the Conservatives were allowed to campaign for the No side and bring their media and press woth them, and timed shortly after you've just broken your word and pissed off all your supporters? Lunacy.

At the very minimum, it should've been referendum first, then vote.

Puja