Copy of Lib Dem coalition agreement with Tories

[Ladymuck]

Your friend's letter is most heartfelt Keef. All my life I have been a staunch Labour supporter, but in the last couple of elections I just could not bring myself to vote for them - so I voted Green. What I am trying to say is that I can totally relate to your friend - totally. It's such a shame when this type of loss of faith hits.

[dc]

Two things - one a quick question. Why does Cllr Barber refer to Sinn Fein as the 'IRA'. I hope this was just an unintended slip?

On the substance of the agreement I support a fixed term although 4 years seems more appropriate than 5 (local elections, GLA, Scotland, Wales etc all have 4 year terms and 5 year parliamentary terms are often seen as over-stretching - 1974-79, 1992-97 and 2005-10). That's an argument to be had and I understand there will be differing views.

More importantly, where is the democratic legitimacy for a government that fails to command the confidence of the House of Commons requiring a 55% vote to oust it? I just don't understand the reasoning there. Currently of course a majority of 1 is enough.

Duncan Chapman

[Loz]

It surprises me that LibDem supporters would have been happier with a LibLab coalition. Labour made it clear that their manifesto was the only way, so the LibDems would have got nothing into the Queen's Speech.

And why would coalition with Labout be seen as 'progressive left', when the modern Labour party is neither?

I'd be interested to see where Keef's mate sees himself going next. If he wants to stay on the laft, then the Greens are his only choice, but he was a disenchanted Labour boy all along and I suspect he will return there. And continue to be disenchanted.

Politics in this country are pretty narrow - you have the LibDems slightly left of centre, Labour slightly right of centre and the Tories slightly right from them. But there is, in reality, a cigarette paper between the policies across the board. All this 'I hate the Tories' is a silly hangover from the Thatcher years. Not unlike a lot of doubts about Labour still hang over their heads from the 70's. Both are distant history.

[Brendan]

Keef for someone who is so involved in politics your pal?s letter displays an amazing lack of insight into the situation.

This hasn?t been a LibDem formed government that has pandered to conservative policies. After Labours abysmal rule we were heading for a conservative government either way. What the LibDems have managed to do is use what influence they have to at least have a part in that government, push some of their policy through and stem some of what the conservatives would have done.

It does not mean that they support some of the mean spirited filth that the tories want to do but that they have compromised on it to get the best out of a bad situation.

[mockney piers]

"Why does Cllr Barber refer to Sinn Fein as the 'IRA'."

Glad I'm not alone in being very uncomfortable reading that. Not sure what point JB was trying to make/score there, but thoroughly unhelpful stuff in this day and age.

[Loz]

Yep, have to say the IRA reference jarred with me as well, James.

[Ladymuck]

Me too...but I was too wimpish to say (until now).

[Brendan]

I didn?t notice that at first.

WTF ?

[Keef]

Quite. Just going back, I don't think y friend lacks insight at all, or that he was against a libcon deal. He just feels that they've conceeded in the most important areas. I agree.

[Brendan]

Well they wouldn?t have got anything without it or from a Labour deal.

[Magpie]

As a Tory I think its the worst of all results for the party

1) If it had been Lab/Lib government it would probably have collapsed pretty quickly - and both parties would have been punished in the next election. Result - proper Tory majority

2) If it had been minority Tory government it would have collapsed pretty quickly and the other parties would have been punished at the polls for bringing the government down - result proper tory majority

As it is we have a coalition that may be able to survive for at least a few years, giving the Labour party time to recover, and for the required (but unpopular) spending cuts to be made, plus there is a risk of right wing tories defecting to UKIP (whose 1m votes cost the tories the election).

Whats best for the country is a firm and stable government, so putting party politics aside, its the best of the three outcomes for the country as a whole, but not for the tories.

The IRA is (or was) the military wing of Sinn Fein, so I don't see anything particulrly worrying about Mr Barber referring to them as such.

[James Barber]

Of course I should have typed Sinn Fein - funiliy enough just completed a history of the IRA. Yes I do understand Sinn Fein orignally the political wing of the IRA and that Sinn Fein's current leader in the past also commanded the IRA. An amazing man to have helped make peace possible. Funny the angst we all have for a coaltion in comparison to Northern Ireland.

The point I was making is their MP's have not sat in the Houses of Parliament and have not voted. So the actual number of MP's required for a majority is fractionally less than half the number of actual MP's. It made the maths of an alternative to a Lib Dem/Tory coalition more possible.

[mockney piers]

I think the key is in the word 'was'. If bitter enemies can put aside their differences to cooperate in peace, what right a councillor hundreds of miles away sticking his fingers up at the peace process when frankly it's none of his business. Pointless, petty and demeans the man and the position.

That aside, I'm inclined to think that keef's mate is understandable but a tad naive.

Lets be honest, noone votes Lib Dem in the hope they'll form a majority government do we. At worst we hope there are enough MPs talking sense and making decent (no, not that sense of the word 'decent') suggestions that it somehow elevates the whole.

The best we could have hoped for is this, and I'm inclined to agree with Mr Clegg that the Tories had the strongest mandate and this was the right thing to do (though agree with Brendan entirely regards Labours failure and the absolute imperative that they be kicked out).

The best we could have hoped for then is this outcome, and also in total agreement with quids that with the state the country is in, a coalition where both parties can finger point during the tough times ahead, thus freeing them up to actually make the really hard choices necessary to get this country out of the sh*t Brown has put us in (yes Brown, SUb Primes merely served to expose how bad he was) is ideal.

Politics is nothing if not the art of compromise, and during the next few years I'd rather have a pragmatic government than an idealistic one, and this coalition definitely lends itself to that end.

[mockney piers]

Hmm, ok then, but as a politician I'd have thought thinking before you speak should be second nature by now :-/

And yes, not just Northern Ireland but pretty much the rest of Europe, everyone keeps citing Italy, but it's a very particular country with it's own political complexities (Dark Heart of Italy is a marvellous read on that one); Spain for one certainly seems to cope fine with PR and perhaps could be a model for a fully elected bicameral (actually the senate uses a complex block vote system, am I the only one who actually likes an unelected upper house btw? We'll only end up with David Beckham in the Lords if we elect it) system with autonomous provinces!!

[Brendan]

Doesn?t New Zealand run on the Westminster System but has recently adopted PR?

Considering they manage to take most things started in Britain and then do them better it may be a good place to look.

[Keef]

Just to answer the somewhat patronising tones from Mockney and Brendan.

Read back, my friend said "It is the terms of the deal that has left me feeling so betrayed and angry".

He did not expect the lib dems to storm to power.

He did not say that lib dems should go in with labour.

What he is saying, and I agree completely, is that in going in with the Tories, the lib dems had a once in several generations chance to really have an impact. However, they have bent over and let the tories arse f**k them over all the main points that won them votes. There is a reason people vote lib dem, and that is because they are a bit different from the other two. They could have tried to change things from within, and driven a harder bargain, but instead, they have given up on all the important things, and just accepted a few scraps.

Please don't label someone as naive, just because they show a bit of passion, and differ from your opinion. Most of the stuff I read on here is just pseudo intellectual drivel, regurgitated from last night's newnight, but said with the confidence of some sort of heavyweight political commentator. Very patronising, and dismissive.

[Brendan]

Apologies for sounding patronising earlier. I just think people should reserve judgement for now.

Regarding your point though, at this juncture without actually having been there do we know how much bargaining power Clegg had and why he had to compromise on what he did and to what aim?

[Keef]

Fair play, sorry, just reacted a bit there.

I agree that we should wait and see how it goes to a pont, but I still feel sure Clegg could have pushed for more, on at least one of their biggest points.

Anyway, it's done, and what will be will be...

[Brendan]

Magpie Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The IRA is (or was) the military wing of Sinn

> Fein, so I don't see anything particulrly worrying

> about Mr Barber referring to them as such.

That doesn?t make it ok. There are connotations. You don?t get Sinn Fein referring to all English parties off the cuff as ?the military occupiers?

Or maybe they do.

[dc]

To be fair, as the person who raised the IRA issue, Cllr Barber has clarified his position. It's certainly the case that Clegg and Cameron had a little less far to travel politically in seeing eye to eye than Gerry Adams and the Rev Ian Paisley!

Maybe nobody is interested in the second leg of my point above but I am very uncomfortable with the fact that a 55% majority will be required in parliament for a vote of no-confidence to succeed. That seems contrary to every principle of democracy - a sort of first past the unaccountably moved post.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Actually, Brendan, as someone who grew up with Sinn Feinn/IRA being pretty synonymous, it is hard to stop using them as interchangeable words. Not politically correct, of course, but fairly understandable.

[Peckhamgatecrasher]

Mockney, I'm with you re elected upper house. Call me naive, but I always hope that noblesse oblige will out.

[mockney piers]

Not meaning to be patronising Keef, apologies, and nothing to do with disagreement, I'm pretty much with your friend on all points. It's just why the outrage, what were they expecting exactly?

It just smacked of Private Eye 'cancel my subscription' letters ;-)

And PCG, I grew up with that too, but I don't think it's PC to avoid using one term instead of the other, it's just that it serves no purpose with what is an ever stronger but still uncertain process, and to do so explicitly must be done so with an aim in mind. I just couldn't possibly work out what that aim was, it seemed a bit odd and unsettling. Perhaps I've just heard too many renditions of 'No Surrender' at too many football matches for me to avoid negative conclusions.

[SeanMacGabhann]

why the need for the "politically" in that sentence PGC?

[Brendan]

I don?t think it has much to do with PC. More to do with the dismissive attitude towards them it displays.