Forum menu
You were banging on about FOM and capital and then banging on about Scotland and as I can’t be arsed to wade through three pages of bullshit to work out what Scotland has to do with capital flight I’ve made a guess at what is being waffled about.
So you think that Scotland would suddenly lose a significant amount of tax intake to Berwick Upon Tweed? That’s crap for the same reasons I stated above.
It solves both their problems
It solves a subset of both their problems.
The question (as always) is does it solve enough of their problems?
That is less clear.
So you think that Scotland would suddenly lose a significant amount of tax intake to Berwick Upon Tweed?
Since the introduction of mimimum unit pricing for alcohol, it's been my observation that Scotland is already losing a significant amount of tax intake to the big Asda at Carlisle.
Difficult to argue with that at his point in proceedings isn’t it really?
So you'd prefer May's shit deal as opposed to a labour govt and potentially much better deal negotiated by Corbyn, and the opportunity to bin it in favour of remain in a referendum? I thought you wanted to stop brexit?
Since the introduction of mimimum unit pricing for alcohol, it’s been my observation that Scotland is already losing a significant amount of tax intake to the big Asda at Carlisle
😀
I thought you wanted to stop brexit?
He’s just panicking. As November approaches many more people will do the same, some of which are in parliament. It’ll be a time for cool heads…
Cougar
OOB is wrong on supply and confidence - minority governments can run well with a S&C deal with a minor partner - look at the DUP / tory deal. Kept the tories in power for 3 years without another election. SNP manage a minority government in Scotland without even a formal S&C deal
What Supply and confidence is is a deal where a minority party that holds a balance of power agree to support the minority government on votes of confidence ( which means supporting a queens speech) and finance bills - the supply bit. They would not be beholden to support anything put forward by the tories that was not in the tory manifesto or queens speech.
However it also means that the lib dems would have been free to vote down anything proposed by the tories that was not a finance bill and was not in the manifesto or queens speech. This would have enable the lib dems to vote against the tuition fees rise ( as it was not a part of the Tory manifesto or a confidence issue) and similarly the sell off of the post office. In practice it would mean that the tories would not have put issues like this to a vote as they knew they would lose it. so no tuition fees rise or sell off of the post office - nor any other policy that was not in the queens speech
So if the Lib Dems had gone for S&C they would have retained a lot more real power by effectively having a veto over any proposal from the tory party that was not a part of the queens speech, they would not have had to break their pledge on tuition fees, they would not have had to agree to sell off the post office and would have had a lot more power over stopping the worst of the tory excesses.
Instead they went into coalition which beholdens them to support ALL tory legislation and also by insisting they would continue the coalition for 5 years no matter what it meant they had NO power at all to do anything - they simply became patsies for the tories.
going into coaltion was a huge political blunder by naive politicians that meant they ended up supporting vile tory policies.
this is why I amso angry. The coalition was a huge blunder but Swinson refuses to apologise for it. S&C would still have produced a stable government( the lib dems reason for coalition) ( if you believe that was needed at the time I do not) but the lib dems would have retained real power to stop the worst of the tory excesses.
Hope that explains what S&C is and how it works and why it was obviously the best option for the lib dems. their options were not coaltion or unstable government - there was this third option they considered but rejected because they wanted those ministerial jags.
There are other deals available as well in similar vein and I can give loads of examples if wanted. You can do issue by issue deals, you can agree to abstain on a queens speech in return for getting some of your stuff in it etc etc.
Majority governments or coalitions are not the only ways of running a government
Hope that explains what S&C is and how it works
Very helpful, thank you. I had no idea such a thing existed.
...but rejected because they wanted those ministerial jags.
Rubbish. The main reason for going coalition rather than S&D is that rather than just blocking what you don't like you can get some of your policies implemented in return (and still block quite a bit). A chance at electoral reform, raising the income tax threshold, same sex marriage and a bunch of other stuff. Now you can argue that they were naive and that the trade offs weren't worth it but arguing it was just for personal benefit is nonsense.
OOB is wrong on supply and confidence – minority governments can run well with a S&C deal with a minor partner – look at the DUP / tory deal.
If I had the energy, I’d suggest that the country was more stable at the end of the coalition years than it is likely be at the end of this parliament. The coalition crushed the LibDems politically, so if they only entered it out of interest for themselves and their party, it didn’t work out well for them*. Perhaps giving the country stability in difficult economic circumstances was at least part of their motivation. The DUP have served their own interests well using S&C… but have they served their constituents in Northern Island and the rest of the UK well?
Edit *just remembered how much Clegg is now paid by Facebook to try and deflect concerns about how they erode democracy and liberty around the world… so I take some of that claim back.
Alan Johnson was on being interviewed. It was an interesting interview but to summarise, his message to labour MP’s was “just vote for the ****ing deal!”
Then again Alan Johnson predicted Corbyn would be annihilated in the 2017 GE.
Kelvin - an S&C deal or similar would simply have ment that the lib dems retained power to stop tory policy they did not like. going into coalition and stating that they would do it for five years no matter what allowed the tories to run all over them.
Tenuous - they got absolutely nothing of any significance in return because the tories knew the lib dems had given away all their power. They didn't even get a shot at PR in any meaningful form.
Of course the decision to go for coaltion not S&C was all about personal gain. Clegg, Swinson etc all got rich off it. That was the entire reason for it - that and wanting power for personal gain.
You’re right about them making money. Is Swinson worth as much as Corbyn yet?
Any chance we can get this topic back on to the EU? Fun as ranting about the LibDems is. Apologies for my part in this tangental diversion.
tj - You should try reading the book "Mistakes were made, but not by me". There's an interesting section on how we can end up unjustly demonising others and assigning them the worst possible motives to reinforce just how right we are. (see all divorces ever :p )
minority governments can run well with a S&C deal with a minor partner – look at the DUP / tory deal. Kept the tories in power for 3 years without another election.
You're offering the last three years of rudderless chaos as an example of a successful alternative to a coalition?
The LibDems sacrificed their party precisely to avoid a colossal omnishambles like the last three years!
The omnishambles is a result of tory party infighting and splits - nothing to do with the S&C deal. The DUP S&C deal has meant the tory minority government has survived 3 years. No VONC lost precisely because the DUP supported the government.
Get real.
The lib dems thought it was their road to greatness - they were so naive they did not realise the disaster it would be for both the party and the country.
S&C deal would have kept the tory government running those 5 years but would have left the lib dems with power to hold the tories to account.
The omnishambles is a result of tory party infighting and splits – nothing to do with the S&C deal.
The omnishambles is because of a lack of a decent majority. With a majority of 80 May could have come up with a coherent strategy and followed it. Without that we had chaos.
The DUP S&C deal has meant the tory minority government has survived 3 years.
If the LIB Dems hadn't taken on the responsibility Cameron would have had a majority of -40. Unworkable. (Frankly, even with a majority of 20 you are in office but not in power because governments have to do unpopular stuff.)
Governments with tiny (absent) majorities aren't good things. Historically they hang on for a short while until a new election can be called, but these days with the rise of small parties sucking seats off the two main parties lack of majority has become the norm so even the repeat election option doesn't work. The libdems had no choice. If they'd condemned us to multiple inconclusive elections or a long term government with a -40 majority you'd be the loudest voice claiming they should take some responsibility, step up to the plate and do the governing they were elected to do.
Far from a moral obligation to avoid government our MPs have a moral obligation to *do* some government.
I'd hardly say the Lib/Tory coalition was a disaster by the benchmark of the following Tory government(s).
OOB - you are still not getting it. S&C would have provided the stability you deem needed without causing the lib dems to give away all power. All over the world governments run like this quite happily ad we have a good example in Scotland. 2 SNP minority governments that managed to remain stable and work well for the full term
You really think the LIb dems were morally right to join a hard right government that caused 10 000 deaths?
also your maths is nonsense - an S&C deal would have given the tories exactly the same majority as the coaltion did. thats how it works
Nothing you have said makes any logical sense. Don’t berate others for “not getting it’.
S&C deal would have given the tories exactly the same majority as the coaltion did.
It doesn't but if it did it would be an identical arrangement to a coalition except liberals would get no part in government and developing policy, they'd just have to blindly support the government. Which would make it worse than coalition in every sense. However, it doesn't give the govt a majority, it gives them a majority for the budget and in the event of a no-confidence vote. ...and even then both sides can walk away at any time.
OOB – you are still not getting it
...and it seems I never will because this is my last reply to you on this topic. It's not personal, I just can't keep up the required post rate and I think we've both made our points.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.
I'd never heard of S&C before the unholy aligience between the DUP and the tories happened.
What makes you think the lib dems would have been aware of it?.
Before you answer.. Please also consider that the Conservatives literally bribed the DUP with a few billion pounds worth of tax payers money, money that could have been spent on the NHS, social care, the police, or anything else more worthy than a dirty bribe.
Of course the lib dems would be aware of it. Its a very common arrangement and one the old liberals were in in the 70s ( the lib lab pact was a form of S&C). anyone knowing any political theory and history would know and also the lib dems discussed it at the time according to those who were there - their choice was force a second election, do S&C, coalition. they chose coalition. ( a lot of people seem to think they could have governed with labour - they couldn't - the numbers did not add up)
Its funny how few folk debating politics on here don't understand this very basic setup.
they’d just have to blindly support the government. Which would make it worse than coalition in every sense.
As I thought - you don't understand it
S&C does not mean blindly supporting the government at all times. It allows a minority government to govern in a stable manner but allows the minor party to hold onto a veto power so given the minor partner far more power than coaltion
they got absolutely nothing of any significance in return because the tories knew the lib dems had given away all their power.
The Lib Dems gave away all their power, yet you still blame them for tuition fees?
I'm no political expert, but these two claims would appear to be at odds with each other. Pick one, maybe?
I almost miss this being the Brexit thread.😁
Maybe we’ll return to it, one day.
cougar - because if they had been in a S&C situation they could have forced the torys to drop the tuition fees rise. It wasn't a manifesto commitment so under S&C the lib dems could have opposed it
I know quite a few lib dem activists - they all agree now that S&C would have been a better option and at the time it was a very finely balanced decision. One they got wrong
Anyway - as OOB states - points have been made, this thread should really move on from this. I'll stop
Kelvin - where is the lack of logic?
It's a bit of a paradox alright.
Ok - Brexit -
Shock horror, we all know what jonsons game plan is.
Will corbyn get off his egg box and state an opinion?
Has corbyn even said what he thinks about the supreme Court case?
He's a non entity.
because if they had been in a S&C situation they could have forced the torys to drop the tuition fees rise. It wasn’t a manifesto commitment so under S&C the lib dems could have opposed it
I know quite a few lib dem activists – they all agree now that S&C would have been a better option and at the time it was a very finely balanced decision. One they got wrong
This may or may not be true, I have no idea. But then, why not argue "I hate the LDs because they got a finely balanced decision wrong" rather than "I hate the LDs because tuition fees"?
Is it not perhaps disingenuous to beat them up for not opposing tuition fees, if what you're asserting here now is that they'd put themselves into a position where they couldn't oppose it?
You (and everyone else) didn't even mention S&C until I started picking at strings, I'd never heard of it before today.
Cougar, TBF to TJ, he has been banging on about this for what seems like a lifetime. Surprised you've missed it.
freedom of movement of UK citizens to Australia? yeah, nah. Never going to happen.
fantasists.
Yeah - that article just talks about "relaxing" the visa requirements - not free movement.
Australians are just as gammony (perhaps more so?) that the British.... immigration is a huge issue over here too.
Cougar - I have never said I hate them because of tuition fees - its a minor issue. I hate them for the lies, betrayal and 10 000 dead as a result of their support for the tories
I hate them for the lies, betrayal and 10 000 dead as a result of their support for the tories
I just hate them. Charles Kennedy was alright, but that was a long time ago. He can bet he wouldn’t be standing down liberal candidates to support ex-tory cabinet ministers or rolling out the red carpet for them.
batfink
...Australians are just as gammony (perhaps more so?) that the British…. immigration is a huge issue over here too
And could it be directly related to their media being owned by more or less the same foreign billionaires?