moshe

much as l have no problem with the milibands l still think allan johnson would have done a better job to steady the waters and set ground for the new blood. the next election is labours to loose there are many voters looking for a home and this coalition is the best thing to have happened to labour stay clam be positive and have an all inclusive opposition team the future is just promissing.

David

Flitz

I hardly need to respond to your post as Caroline has kindly and well argued most of the points that I would have argued myself.

I do wonder what all you anti labour people hope to achieve by your comments on this blog. Is it argument for argument's sake or a quest for conversion? If it's the latter I think that you will be wasting a considerable portion of your life.

Andy Bugden

It's good that you mention VAT. I would love to see your hard data on it. The EU does have some data on the prices of children's shoes between Denmark and the UK. They found that Denmark's prices were about 2% higher than those in the UK. That's amazing isn't it?

Now consider this: In Denmark VAT is 25%, but in Britain it's zero rated. In truth for most products that you buy you consider the VAT on the price you pay. This is because you are the one paying it. Now consider from manufacturing, we look first at the retail price and then work backwards allowing for taxes and profits for the supply chain.

The truth is VAT at 20% is on the cards. All 3 parties would probably have raised it in this parliament anyway - The liberals and the Labour parties were careful not to say it in their manifestos but this is the reality. This is why:

We are committed to a single rate of VAT across the whole EU. There are arguments at the rate - Britain likes 15% Sweden likes 25%. The consensus seems to be 20% and everyone is converging on this. John Major immediately took Britain halfway there in 1993.
Since January this year VAT has been chargeable across EU borders on services and we are expecting an announcement from Belgium later this year on more VAT convergence - ie VAT will be charged across borders on goods (this needs a single VAT rate) Britain will actually gain some trade revenue from this as will Germany, which is why many in the EU think that because of the economies the time for convergence is most opportune.
Under the current system businesses do not charge VAT cross borders to other businesses. This has allowed significant fraud to build up - I could buy 1million worth of goods from germany VAT free and then sell it with VAT in the UK and then run off with the tax. It does happen - This fraud costs the British Tax payer around 8 billion per year (estimate) and maybe as much as 150 billion to the whole EU - every year! It is called MTIC Fraud (It has its own name)
A house of lords committee looked into it about 2 years ago and concluded that the only way to stop this fraud is to charge the same rate of VAT across borders (politically the suggested 15% but the rest of europe is pretty much agreed at 20%)
20% VAT will put 20 billion into the coffers- more than enough to increase tax credits for the poorest.

55% is a good idea since it prevents either party stitching the other up and both parties need 5 years to make this work - the first 2 will be very hard for both as the cuts begin to stingand the next 3 needed to increase their standings.

A final warning on PR. When I first came to the Netherlands 5 years ago - we have PR here. Geert Wilders was one man with some policies which would not look out of place in a BNP manifesto. 2 years ago he changed the name of his party from Geert Wilders (he was one man then) to the Peoples Freedom Party and won 9 seats out of 150. since the general election was called here he had been leading some polls - it is PR and on those polls he would be the largest party. This is the guy who peddled his anti muslim film "fitna". Under the first past the post system in Britain, not only would he not be the largest party, it is highly unlikely he would be an MP. But because he commands maybe around 17% he gets a significant say and the other parties over the past 2 years have increasingly been more racist as a result.

David

Brian

"We need people of ability, integrity and honesty".

It's lamentable then that Labour lost office for that was what we had. It's also too bad that we did not get any new Cabinet Members with any of those qualities. You may not care about the complexion of the cabinet or the fact that it is not representative of the people of this nation, but I am sure that others will. Rich, white, male, ex public school boys should not be assumed to have the skills that will be required in the real world of which they know so little

Cameron made the so called "jobs tax" the central focus of his campaign and preached the destruction that it would cause to jobs. The mantra was used excessively in the media debates, yet now this man of integrity decides to keep it presumably with the disastrous job losses?. What of his promises to all the large employers who signed the petition against it and made contributions to the tory party?

Ability? George Osborne who Vince Cable would not work with? Don't get me started on the honesty part, for the lies are already streaming out of No 10.

Enjoy being ConDemned whilst it lasts.

Dr Olu Ojedokun

Filiz,

£10,000 tax band? You forget that the poorest pay no tax anyway and 2ndly all including the poorest are going to be clobbered by the rise in VAT! Please don't get carried away by that measure. As for the ID card and the runway, Labour agreed to jessiton it in talks with the Liberals but they were bent on going with the Tories. I wish them all the best.

Caroline

Filiz

No runway at Heathrow - but not ruled out for anywhere else. The £10,000 tax threshold - to be phased in over the next 5 years (at least) and gives more to the greater numbers who do earn well above £10k than to those most in need; also not affordable without the LibDem mansion tax which has been shelved. Tax thresholds have increased on average £550/year anyway, so from the current postion of £6470 over 5 years it will take to phase in it will be net gain of maybe £1000 over what it would have been anywhere.
Id cards - I'll give you but Labour were prepared to negotiate that with the LibDems too, if only they (sorry Nick Clegg) hadn't made up their minds 2 years ago that it was a LibCon deal come what may.

Chris lancashire

Carry on the rabid ranting - you are looking more and more out of touch and isolated from reality. Better yet to begin asking yourself and the Labour party why 22million didn't vote Labour and begin fixing that problem. No, on second thoughts, carry on ranting.

Gettit Wright

Alastair,

You recently said on the radio that England's defeat in the 1970 World Cup didn't influence the 1970 General Election, because the "dates didn't stack up". This isn't correct. For the record England lost 2-3 to West Germany on Sunday June 14th and Harold Wilson lost 43,1% - 46,4% to Ted Heath on Thursday 18th June. I'm old enough to remember that some people I knew DID take it out on Labour, but it's still amazing that Labour got 43,1% and lost. The Liberals got 7,5% and won 6 seats - the famous telephone box / taxi period.

Brian Tomkinson

David
If losing seats is the only definition of "losing" in this election, then Labour stands head and shoulders above the rest as by far the biggest losers. I don't share your concern about the complexion of the cabinet. We need people of ability, integrity and honesty. This has nothing to do with race, gender or wealth.

Filiz

[David
2010-05-16 21:02:18

Turns out Alistair that the LibDems overwhelmingly supported the coalition - your spinning is failing ]

Not only that, but they lost 100 members but had 400 new members. In fact, I may re-new my membership too. I don't think Alastair can bear the thought that this coalition may work. No ID cards, no third runway and most of all the £10k tax band. And these agreed by the Tories! How bad does that make NuLabour look, they hurt the poorest and the Tories agree to the £10k tax threshold. You couldn't make it up. But then again we all, well almost all know how authoritarian/right wing NuLabour was, remember Walter Wolfgang? The attempt to push through the 92 day detention without trial? etc etc etc

[Quote from blog:
And don't forget that whilst Cameron may be PM, he is only there because Clegg helped him to get there.End quote]

Yes, this is what happens when there is a Hung Parliament, one or more parties form a coalition and the party with the biggest share of votes gets to have their leader as PM.

David

Brian

As Dr. Olu said, your parameters are obviously tilted. Losing seats is a failure. Clegg apparently believed that he had decimated the Labour vote and could actually become PM. I consider that not only failure, but also bad judgement.

When the scale of his error was revealed he was prepared to sacrifice the historic principles of his party to become deputy conservative PM and grab a few ministerial seats. This cabinet is hardly Liberal or progressive when it consists of: Millionaires : 23, White : 29, Black : 0, Asian :1, Men: 26, Women: 4, LGBT: 0.

Is this the kind of change that we were promised?

Bar Bar of Oz

A Lab/Lib coalition led by Gordon Brown and Charles Kennedy .... now that would have been something to see.

Caroline

If this coalition were anything near to the "new politics" that I have hoped for, perhaps I would not feel so down. For so long the LibDems shouted that it was unfair that the views of so many people were inadequately represented in parliament due to our antiquated 2 party politics dominated voting system. For the first time in 70 years there was an opportunity to show that the United Kingdom does not need to be governed by a majority government, and that parliament under PR could provide strong stable government. Instead we have another majority government which will exclude the votes of approximately 40% of the voters and which looks from where I am sitting to be no different from any other. But at least the Lib Dems will get some of their policies implemented, albeit not the ones most important to some of those who actually voted for them. The expenses scandal is yesterdays news, for me the scandal of this "new politics" will be when MPs who said they would fight against increased student tuition fees and work to abolish them, sitting on their hands in any vote so as not to offend their new masters. Nick Clegg can talk until he's blue in the face - I will never believe that this is the new politics and that his motives were anything less than a nice little personal power grab. The LibDem special conference may have validated their grubby little deal, albeit with a gentle tap on the wrist, and I am sure he will breathe a sigh of relief; But he should be worrying about those who didn't even bother to attend and those who aren't actually party members but have once given them their vote. Their voices will not be heard until the next election.

Holly Golightly

Although I believe that Charlie Kennedy is completely sincere in his views, I also think he HAD to distance himself from the coalition with the Tories as it is immensely unpopular in Scotland. If other Scottish Liberal Democrats don't do like wise then they will get slaughtered at the Scottish Parliament elections in about 50 weeks time.

Labour didn't lose here, the Tories did, but it appears that Nick Clegg didn't take that into account when he made his deal, and his Scottish members might pay a very high price for his English members getting into government.

The Tories, as usual, are proving to be a very divisive force in British politics. As an SNP voter I am not that bothered to be honest, but if I was Nick Clegg I would be.

David

Turns out Alistair that the LibDems overwhelmingly supported the coalition - your spinning is failing

Kinnock and Thatcher's Love Child

Politics... is knowing when to make a gesture in order to achieve an aim.
For the LibDems, they stood to get nothing, and settled for something. A sacrifice of principle? I expect so. But what use is a principle without a platform?

Blair was the fresh faced youth of Labour. He won votes in abundance. The Tories mimicked it, the LibDems mimicked it.
Throughout all of GB's unfortunate incidents and dire visual impact he retained a very credible portion of the vote. It's readily accepted that Labour lost. Tories won, but the margin wasn't enough to warrant the Tories claiming the greater public confidence in them.

For Tory and LibDem, each has done the right thing for their respective parties. Somewhat smirkingly I suspect it's the right thing for the Labour party too. It will do the Labour party no harm whatsoever to give the public a taste of the unsavoury alliance before returning to the Miliband Labour party a little wiser.

Finally, as for GB's fiscal record. The figures don't lie. He can pretend like Rafa Benitez that he was plagued with misfortune, or like Owen Coyle that we wasn't guiding a sinking ship. But there's no escaping the truth, he left us in a less than healthy position, bordering on needing intensive care.

I love the Labour party, but GB had a hand in this country's plight, and paid the sacrifice for it.

Brian Tomkinson

Dr Olu and David,

Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister and Kennedy is an ex-party leader on the backbenches. I call that success and failure.

Tricky Dickie

This fiscal surplus in 1997 was the result of zero investment and maintenance of the country's infrastructure. Anyone can build up a surplus ...all you have to is forget about all the things you should do, need to do, required to do and are honour bound to do....in short stuff the pockets while stuffing everyone else.
Thatcher thought her values would be reflected in the public..honour, duty, sense of fair play. However the people she freed became selfish self centered and greedy the very opposit of what she wanted. She was by then powerless to put the gene back in the bottle.
This surplus is not a trophy of the years of Tory rule but an indictment to suffering and neglect.
I am happier to see new schools and hospitals as the Labour legacy. This financial melt down was global and most fair minded people will tell you GB saved grannies pension and Uncle Jim's savings and my job when the waste products started hitting the ventilation system.
Watch Osborne claim a scorched earth policy to mask his own ideological slash and burn agenda. I hope Vince has the principles to be there to tell the truth when the tories spin the lies.

kathy

If Charles Kennedy is such a principled man and disagreed with the coalition, why did he abstain from voting and not vote against it? Could it be like all politicians his eye is on the main chance that there still might be something in it for himself. With regard to the new Labour Leader you need a new face, none of the contenders would tempt me to even consider that Labour had changed. I understand that there are reports that when the books are done a vast amount of Labour spending that has not been declared will come to light leaving us with even more debt than we thought. Apparently this borrowed money was spent in Labour areas. It could be if this is true the electorate will decide that no matter which leader Labour has they are unfit to govern anyway.

David

Jake

Ill fated coup attempt? It appears from the little facts that we know, that the dialogue was instigated by Clegg. It was rejected by Brown because of Clegg's excessive power hungry demands. Hardly a coup. If it was a coup attempt, what of the unholy coup of Cameron & Clegg? Or is this OK because you support it and will sacrifice all principles for power? This nation has certainly been ConDemned.

You bring shame on yourself and show a lack of humanity by even jokingly mentioning an alcohlic disease in your comment. Enjoy your new government while it lasts.

Baig

It turns out that Gordon Brown was the only one worth voting for out of the three! I made a big mistake voting for Lib Dems in what was a tactical vote to keep the Tories out (and get Labour to clean up their foreign policy on Iraq/Palestine). What a mistake!

Brown was more simple and principled than these two sleazy posers, I think the man with the modest roots from Scotland will be missed. It's becoming clear now that he was not in it for the cameras or ceremony, he was in it because he knew he could deliver the substance the country needed. I feel sympathy for him in that he had such an unfair ride in a Britain he wanted to make fairer!

Damn, why did he not call that snap election in 2007! It was his for the taking. Where were you then Alastair?!?

Chris

Graham - what driugs are you taking? - fantastic Labour record?? - In 1997 the cumulative government debt was under 400bn and fiscal surpluses were on the horizon to reduce that further. Now £800bn and well over £200bn "off balance sheet" in the form of future PFI commitments and £200bn of printed money - Labour has built some new hospitals and schools and weighting lists are less - but the debt burden hangs around the necks of all of our children. Alistair won't accept it and justifies this inept fiscal management and ignores the rising inequality - preferring to slag off a few toffs - but for goodness sake take the rose tinted specs off - it is easy to spend other peoples money rather than earn and spend your own - Blair will be regarded as a war criminal by generations to come and Brown a fiscal clown.

Jake

You try and hark on about the failure of the Conservative campaign although they won a record amount of seats and gave Labour a trouncing.
Don't forget that Cameron is now Prime minister and was helped by your very own ill fated Coup attempt. Perhaps if you hadn't decided to lend the Labour campaign a hand they would have faired slightly better.
I can only assume that you and Mr Kennedy have got back on the sauce again if you think that either of you carry any influence on the political scene anymore. Please do us all a favour and turn it in.

Simon

I do find it funny that many of the left call the BBC pro-Tory, and many of the right call the BBC pro-Labour.

Anyway, it is up to Labour to be a strong opposition that will see many loyalists from the Libs and Cons switch over. In the long-run this coalition is good for Labour and bad for the other two parties as it will soon fall head over heels.

alan

I think Kennedy is right to feel worried about the Libdems being swallowed up by the tories if it goes to 5 years i'm sure thats what will happen.

Labour's campaign was poor in my view it was dull and unimaginative as you saay where was the defence of the recird of the last 13 years? nowhere a lot of good was done in that time but it seemed that it should be a secret not something to be lauded i'm in my early 40's now and those 10 years '97 to '07 where simply the best time i've had crisis's came and went you felt the government was doing the right thing for me and everyone else the little man it was a sad day when Blair went.

Now in fairness GB did save us all from going into a depression i'm not old enough to have seen one but it felt like we as a world were heading down that road but his policies pulled everyone back from the brink but to me again in the campaign there was little emntion of it maybe the team could'nt get itss message across to a media that was only listening to the tories i dont know.

I think Ed Miliband was right to an extent to come out and say what he said but now he has to move on and start forgeing for the future to dwell on mistakes too long would be wrong,my vote's going to David as for me he has that "something" about him much like TB did all those years ago.

Jonathan Turner

I don't agree with this assertion you keep making about the Tories thinking they could coast to an easy majority. Whilst I don't think they did the best job they could in definining exactly what they stand for and what their policy agenda is, to compare it to the changes that happened pre-97 in the Labour party is a poor comparison. In 1997, we had had several years of economic growth and the potential was there to use the proceeds of the growth to make promises on investment in public service etc etc. The Conservatives were in no such position in 2010, and if they were totally honest about what needed to be done re public spending cuts the public would have taken fright, and it would have exposed them to "same old Tories" charges, making it sound like they were enthusiastic about wanting to cut services to the bone.

What I am trying to say is their room for maneouvre was very limited, given the circumstances.What you say about their arrogance and taking the voters for granted was in my view the Conservatives taking a low risk strategy and acknowledging that, given what they were about to inherit from the Labour government, they couldn't promise anything positive. So if you can't offer anything positive, and you don't want to scare the voters by constantly reminding the country about how bankrupt it is, keep it bland and say little.

That's what I think the Tory strategy was and I think it's understandable given the circumstances.

Patrick James

As time goes by I keep meeting more and more people who either tell me how glad they are they voted Labour and not Lib-Dem, or that they are really depressed that they voted Lib-Dem and not Labour.

It is true that all the people I know would describe themselves as "socially progressive", but I think the damage to the Lib-Dem's is very great personally.

Labour should not be complacent of course and I don't think we will be. It is my belief that Labour should now "fill out" the whole socially progressive agenda, we should become the party that represents all the socially progressive people in the UK.

The Lib-Dems have vacated the space they took up on the centre-left and the Labour party needs to fill that new vacuum that has opened up.

David

Brian

I think that is you doing the spinning, in fact, please sit down for you must be giddy.

Kennedy actually won more seats in the 2005 election than Clegg has in this! How you can spin that into a "lamentable failure" by Kennedy is beyond understanding. I do not consider Kennedy's stance to be "a fit of pique", I consider it a principled and dignified response to his colleagues shameful scramble for any kind of power.

If this cobbled together coalition of misfits manages to survive for years I fear that that is when you will really see damage to this country.

Dr Olu Ojedokun

Brian T,

Charles Kennedy failed? I do recall he won more seats in the House of Commons than the media created Nick Clegg? Failed? We must have different parameters of failures.

Brian Tomkinson

"This is a progressive country"
More of your spin; but anyway this "progressive country" decided that your Labour pals should be dispatched from office after 13 devastatingly damaging years! As for Kennedy, he took the coward's way out in his little fit of pique after Clegg had succeeded where he failed so lamentably. You really do have so much in common.

Graham Jones

Any evidence people need, as to just how fragile this unholy Lib-Con pact is, just need to look at the mutterings of Lib-dems in the papers. First Paddy Ashdown, was blaming Gordon Brown's intransigence during discussions, but now he's blaming David Milliband. Make up your mind Paddy. Who next to blame? Peter Mandleson? Ed Balls? Alistair Campbell? Lord Lucan? Shergar?
If the Lib-dems had wanted to make a progressive government work, they could have. What they wanted was power, not policies implementation. If it had been about policy, they would have struck a deal with Labour.
Because of this selfish power-grab policy, they have left Britain open to a tory onslaught.
Charles Kennedy is probably fearful of the reaction to his party at the Scottish elections, where they could be wiped out. They are seen as tories now, north of the border. Indeed, from what I've seen and heard, this is now becoming the norm in England, as well.
As for Andy Marr, what did we expect? That Marr would suddenly stop following the pro-tory BBC policy? No chance, Marr has a cosy position at the Beeb, and wont rock the boat. The only people who can do that, are the public and external groups. The BBC have been as guilty as Sky during the election with their reporting, and there should be an inquest. It's public money, after all.
It is only post-election, that people are waking up to the fantastic record, of Labour in government. The chill wind of toryism, is blowing in their faces, and they don't like it.
It's true that the record wasn't defended well enough. It's now up to the new guard, to ensure that all those achievements, during the golden age of Blair/Brown, are added to the legacy of the Labour party.
More importantly, they most write the next legacy of the party, so they can offer the country a better future. That's what the Labour party do.

SMukesh

I was very impressed with the text of Ed Miliband`s speech to the Fabian society and his interview to Andrew Marr today...This is a man of both style and substance...I think him or Andy Burnham will be Labour`s best bet to face the Tory/Lib Dems in an election when it comes...Somone too far to the left will scare away the centrist voters...David will be painted as a Blairite and these days that`s a negative,eventhough he was a very successful Labour leader...I still believe that had TB remained in power,he would have blown away DC.
It is also quite obvious that DC`s runway poll lead began to shrink once PM returned from Europe,and when you began to help Labour...It wasn`t enough in the end as NC chose to betray LibDem voters to put DC in power...People are not easily fooled for long and NC is sure to face the wrath of the voters next time.

bill sharples

Well good for Charles, how many more Jiminy Crickets will emerge? My bet is that poor Vince Cable will soon walk out of Osbornes office shaking his head and repeating " What have I done?" Vinces morale compass has I think only been thrown off course on a temporary basis and is not held in place by selfish career motives.The irony is that these careerist Lib Dems may have ensured that their fall is as speedy as their climb. Cameron has indeed turned them over, nullifying them as a party and for now quieting the more unpallatable elements of his own. Roll on the demise of both.

Dr Olu Ojedokun

I though Ed Miliband was clear and incisive in his post election post-moterm. I also thought he got the balance right in examining possible failures of the past viz a viz solids successes.

His launch gave me hope and if he wins he presents more than a challenge for the Liberal Conservatives at the dispatch box, presentationally, tactically and substantially.

As for some of the news reports that Labour was relunctant to enter into a grand 'progressive' alliance with the Liberals, what did we expect? With the media whipping up anti-Gordon Brown hysteria and anti labour sentiments of the most personal and vicious?

Another contoversial point I may freely make is that there appeared to be undercurrents of opposition against Gordon Brown because he is Scottish (disguised as non electability), wrongfully so. Of course no one will admit to this.

Dr Olu Ojedokun

I though Ed Miliband was clear and incisive in his post election post-moterm. I also thought he got the balance right in examining possible failures of the past viz a viz solids successes.

His launch gave me hope and if he wins he presents more than a challenge for the Liberal Conservatives at the dispatch box, presentationally, tactically and substantially.

As for some of the news reports that Labour was relunctant to enter into a grand 'progressive' alliance with the Liberals, what did we expect? With the media whipping up anti-Gordon Brown hysteria and anti labour sentiments of the most personal and vicious?

Another contoversial point I may freely make is that there appeared to be undercurrents of opposition against Gordon Brown because he is Scottish (disguised as non electability), wrongfully so. Of course no one will admit to this.

David

Phil
I do not need to answer for Alastair, but I don't understand where your sore loser argument comes from, he has repeated over and over that he accepts that Labour had insufficient seats to remain in office.

Anyone with any interest or knowledge of politics does not need to be too much of a sceptic, or pessimist, to see the fault lines that already exist in the coalition or those on the horizon.

Why would you expect any Labour supporter to hope for success in this unholy partnership? The fact is that we had a strong stable government before the election that was managing the economy well and progressing towards a genuine recovery. The voters encouraged strongly by the media decided that they wanted a change and they have got it. It is a change which is very unlikely to result in the strong stable government that was promised.

Manifesto gangplanks have already been ditched by both new allies and the electorate have been royally screwed. In the leadership debates the sole mantra that we heard from Cameron was Jobs Tax, Jobs Tax, and how it would be scrapped because it would destroy jobs. Now we find that he can not really have believed that as he has found it so easy to drop it.

A government elected on false promises will not stand the test of time nor will it fix the mess that greedy bankers got us in. This constant attempt to blame Gordon Brown for things outside his, or this country's control is just getting tedious.

Phil

"I would advise Ed against doing too much of the bashing of the past". And why is that Alastair? - too uncomfortable to face the truth that the last three years under GB was wasted opportunity and GB personally was a disastrous appointment as party leader and PM.

You are coming across as a right sore loser in your constant jibes at the new administration. It comes across that you are just willing it to fail, regardless of the need in the country for unity and strong, purposeful government to fix the terrible economic mess GB and New Labour got us into.

Ruthie

"As so often, the media is missing the pulse of public opinion."
I have been astonished at the positive spin put on the colaition, there was a BBC news report the other day which showed the opinions of two first time Lib Dem supporters,surprise surprise they both approved of Clegg/Cameron.

No report of the defections to Labour on the same bulletin of course. I read today that despite your and John Prescott's claims there haven't been THAT many defections. You see you're imaginging things.

Like you I admire Kennedy, but now I await the nasty stories about his drinking problem, it will happen.

Oh and TWO reports today on how wonderful Adam Boulton is/was. You see he was TIRED, did you not realise that when you PROVOKED him?

I can understand the Murdoch bias, but are the BBC scared of cuts? No scrap that, Nick Robinson and Marr and so many others are just plain old Tories. Let them enjoy the first five minutes,the euphoria definitely won't last.
Keep on keepin on

Tim

Alastair

I was and am still a proud floating voter. I think more people should be. If everyone were to commit to one party and support it forever come what may, there would never be any change of government. I am not even sure how one can say with conviction that one will always be a Labour, Tory or Lib Dem supporter. Unless one is to become an MP, who is to say what your party of choice's policies will be in the future. Isn't it narrow-minded to say now that you will always support policy positions that haven't been thought up yet on issues that haven't arisen?

Nonetheless, despite your party loyalty, and even though I may not always agree with you, I always find your arguments to be soundly made. Especially against Adam Boulton! But I wonder, hung-parliament aside, do you consider the fact that the Tories did better than Labour to mean that (i) Tory voters are wrong (foolish even?), or perhaps (ii) Tory voters have been too easily led by the media? And if (ii), then wouldn't you have to admit that precisely the same argument could have been said about Tony Blair in 1997?

Adam

Notice how the news channels are not really covering the Chareles Kennedy story. When an unknown Labout MP said something against Gordon Brown it was breaking news for days. With raising the threshold of dissolution to 55%, the media have been worryingly quiet about this dictatorial move. If it was Labour then Sky News would have had it as breaking news for a week! There were hints in Sky News reporting yesterday that the differences between the Libs and Cons should not be discussed too much as it could destabilise the govt.

If Charles Kennedy was in power, I think we had a better chance of a lab-lib coalition. There were many parts of the LibDems I liked under him. I have lost all respect with them under Nick Clegg. Why is it that Scotsmen have turned out more principled than us Englishmen in the recent world of politics (GB and CK)?

zeireen

agree with what u said 'one of the reasons our support fell is that we did not defend the record over 13 years well enough, and we allowed the Tory and media negativity about this wonderful country, and the many improvements, to take hold'

however i think u defended TB & iraq honourably

Julieom

I didn't think Ed was bashing the past but merely stating why he thought some of the messages had gone astray. I think you are both right here to an extent. Either way both Milibands are impressive in their own ways. As for the Con Dem nation I'm sure Nick and Dave will dine out together with or without Marr but one day Nick will look behind him to find his party has taken a couple of steps away from him. Strange times as I don't have a huge social circle but I have come across 5/6 peple who have joined Labour Party this week myself included. If I was Lib I would be nervous about that for to change a vote is one thing but to commit your time and money to a party is something else and 12,000 are now so annoyed by this stitch up they have done exactly that. Lates poll shows Libs down 3% and Lab up 4%. Squeaky bum time for Liberals

Post a comment