#lib dem tory coalition

[cosm1cmicr0wave]

me and the lads posing for our photoshoot all whilst the economy crashes and the cost of living crisis is happening and people are dying n shit (we don’t give a fuck cuz WE LOOK SO COOL RAAHH >:D!!!) :

Tag yourself. I’m Gordon.

[mariemariemaria]

you have to go to uni otherwise your life will go nowhere why would you go to uni these days the trades are dying we need more people in the trades no no we don't want more women in the trades we need more doctors nurses teachers so you have to get a degree or multiple degrees why are you complaining about debt you chose to do this you have to get at LEAST a masters degree because bachelors are basically useless they're handing degrees out like sweets these days you shouldn't go to uni if you can't afford it you have to get good grades at a level to get anywhere wait you don't want to go to uni? then what the fuck do you expect from life? student loans are fine they're not like other debt the highest student loan debt is £230,000 you'll be repaying it for your whole life there are so many useless degrees they need to get rid of them STEM is the way to go why is art and literature and music so bad these days the top earners at unis are on six figure salaries your student loan interest will go up year on year and btw we are really looking for someone with a higher level of education for this entry level position

[cindydacatpink]

Pfp Coalition 2010 cult

[britishtophatwithlondon]

Edit with Clemeron pairing!

[libdeminomenon]

There are a few posts on here about Ed Davey, leader of the Lib Dems, having a terrible voting record. People say the same about Rory Stewart, an ex-Tory, now most known for The Rest Is Politics podcast with Alastair Campbell.

I think people are too stuck on voting records. We need to remember the role of whips, and the consequences of disobeying them. Several Labour MPs, including Zarah Sultana, were recently suspended from the Labour Party for voting in favour of removing the Two-Child Benefit Cap.

While some people have supported their voting against their party, as the MPs are being true to their own beliefs or perhaps following their constituents' views, this display of division weakens parties as we saw with the Tories over Brexit, or with Labour and its split between the centre-left (Keir Starmer) and the further left (Jeremy Corbyn). This is probably why Starmer suspended his MPs - he can't afford for his party to look any weaker.

Getting themselves suspended is not going to help these rebel MPs remove the Two-Child Benefit Cap. They are now much less likely to be put in key positions under Starmer when they return, from which they could have had more of an influence on this matter and others.

While you may not agree with voting for things you believe to be wrong, you can surely see why people like Ed Davey, Rory Stewart, or even Nick Clegg felt that they had to do that. Davey and Clegg obviously did not want to raise university tuition fees - it was against what they had promised! But they had to compromise this in order for the government to continue to function and to show a strong, united front. They likely believed that it was better for the country for them to stay in power, to block as many austerity policies as they could, even if they lost on tuition fees.

I think we should be more sympathetic to UK politicians' voting records. We shouldn't write off the Lib Dems because of the coalition - coalitions are a very Liberal and very Democratic concept, where as many voices as possible are listened to, instead of just having one party in power - and this makes it clear why Nick Clegg entered the coalition, despite knowing he would have to concede things to to Tories. What do you think?

[aphhera]

Hate it when I have to follow my own advice

[cindydacatpink]

Um, actually... I ship with George Osborne and Danny Alexander🤓☝🏻

open to discourse☺️

[toaarcan]

I need the anti-voting crowd to understand that not voting isn't going to cause the Democrats to take a long, hard, look in the mirror and suddenly decide that they need to swing left to appeal to more leftists.

When these centre-left parties lose, they get more centrist. They try to broaden their appeal and make themselves as appealing to as many people as possible.

The example I'll point to is my local centre-left party, Labour, who are currently poised on the brink of one of the largest victories they've ever had. By the time you read this, it may have already happened, election day is today.

Labour have been drifting rightwards on several fronts for a while now. One of the biggest examples of this was the 1997 elections. After repeatedly failing to defeat Margaret Thatcher and then subsequently losing once to John Major, Tony Blair became the new leader of the party, and reinvented it as New Labour, adopting a much more neoliberal economic approach and promptly got a historic victory.

Now there are a lot of reasons why Blair won as hard as he did, and I don't have time to break them all down, but at the end of the day, their adoption of neoliberal economic policies worked out enormously for them. Not only did Blair romp to victory, he maintained most of his popularity afterwards, reigning for an entire decade before finally stepping down in 2007.

Labour is also a handy demonstrator of why they don't lean leftwards after a defeat, because they actually did try that and it failed spectacularly.

After Ed "Wrong Milliband, wrong Ed" Milliband's dismal performance in the 2015 election, Labour actually decided to try and lean leftwards again, and selected Jeremy Corbyn as their leader.

Unfortunately, Corbyn was useless. Many a Brit will accuse him of not even actually wanting to be Prime Minister, instead just wanting to sit opposite an actual PM and oppose them. They're probably right.

The 2017 snap election, called by Theresa May, should've been an open goal. May was embattled largely by her own party, many of whom were strongly opposed to her attempt at a moderate Brexit deal. She was an unelected PM, chosen by internal party mechanisms after David "Bae of Pigs" Cameron fucked off post-Brexit disaster. The massive, and ever-growing pro-EU voting block were entirely unrepresented. The Liberal Democrats, normally a bit of a thorn in Labour's side in terms of hoovering up more left-wing votes, were still trying to recover from the massive hit in popularity they took after the disasterous Tory-Lib Dem coalition. Blood in the water for any left-wing party worth its salt.

Yeah so Corbyn fucked it up and lost. While May only ended up weakening her position, losing 13 seats and dropping below a majority, the Tories still got their largest vote share since the 80s and held onto power for grim death.

Corbyn stuck around, still didn't get any better, and promptly lost the 2019 election in a landslide. To this guy.

People didn't vote for Corbyn. In the media, he was pilloried as a communist and an antisemite (and he did such a terrible job of fighting that second one that to this day I still have no idea whether it was true or just a smear campaign), and his determination to take the high road only made him look weak and avoidant to the public. His policies got little attention and his campaigning was likely deliberately weak, shooting for the role of opposition rather than government.

It also didn't help that the people for whom Labour wasn't Left Wing Enough still didn't turn out. They still voted Green or didn't vote at all.

To the party itself, though, the message was clear. They'd gone leftward, and it had backfired spectacularly.

Corbyn promptly fucked off at long last and was replaced by Starmer, who is, as expected, another milquetoast neoliberal in most regards. And now, with the polls open for the 2024 election, and Starmer projected to win by such a massive margin that the term "Supermajority" has been thrown around like it's an inevitability, Labour has been engaging in what's been called a "purge" of its leftmost members, with most of Corbyn's base, including Corbyn himself, being barred from running as Labour candidates and instead having to run as independents.

Now, that might horrify you as a leftist, but to them, it's a course-correction. Corbyn and co. represent an era of failure for the party, where a leftward lean cost them two elections.

To swing back around to American politics, if the Democrats lose because of voter apathy, they aren't going to take it as a sign that they need to appeal to the left. They're going to take it as a sign that their appeal wasn't broad enough and they need more outreach to right-wingers.

They already lost in part due to voter apathy in 2016, they didn't move left to compensate. They found the Most Neoliberal Average Establishment Guy they could, rallied behind him, and it partially paid off for them. They at least won.

You want a more leftist Democrat party? Not voting isn't going to get you that. In fact, it will most likely have the exact opposite effect.

[cobragardens]

Housing benefit payments to be frozen next year - BBC News

"[A] four-year freeze to LHA rates between 2020 and 2024 left claimants unable to cover rising rent costs, with Citizens Advice estimating two-thirds experienced a shortfall as a result.

"Housing benefit rates used to be automatically linked to the cost of rents in different areas, but this ended under the Tory-Lib Dem coalition in 2012.

"Under the Conservatives, rates have been frozen in seven years since then, including the latest freeze period between 2020 and 2024."

So, to review, housing benefit in the UK doesn't cover rent for 2/3 of people on it.

This is the fault of the Conservative Party (locally called Tories, Irish Gaelic for "robbers"), as is the social housing shortfall. The Tories forced local councils to sell their social housing to private landlords, who immediately spiked rents.

The Conservatives also made sure the poorest people in the UK were unable to pay rent during the worst part so far of the Covid pandemic.

Now Labour are freezing housing benefit coverage again, when already it's not enough for 2/3 of people to make rent.

Rule Britannia. 🤮

[magpiejay1234]

UK internal politics don't matter globally as British people think it does, but it is becoming clear that Farage, or a successor to him will become the next PM fairly soon, especially with Musk's backing.

Tories are ideologically inconsistent, and Labour is busier with intra-party warfare than defeating the far-right, and Farage is more palatable for the common audience than other far-right factions in Europe & UK, despite his actual politics, which he never discloses publicly.

If this happens, this will likely be the end of UK as we know it, and will likely speed up the dissolution of the Commonwealth realm (the countries that keep the British monarchy, not the Commonwealth of Nations).

Bigger question is, of course, with the fall of Labour, who will take the left. British people despise coalitions, like the French, so any broad front is dead on arrival. The only option of defascistisation is the collapse of Faragism due to internal incoherence.

Basically all other factions of British political spectrum want to stab each other, and the voter base, while smarter than the politicians, retain the Bonapartism of their parliamentary representatives.

**Lib Dems, and Greens both want to kick Labour out of England, to become the party of the left, for their respective policy goals (rejoining EU, becoming a renewable energy giant in Europe).

**Regional nationalist parties want to leave the UK to rejoin EU as soon as possible. They want to keep fascism at bay, but incorrectly view Faragism as a purely English phenomenon (it isn't, it is merely hyperlocalised in England).

**Tories want to keep using Farage as a stick to beat other parties to achieve their goals, which depending on the leader, it is either becoming a tax haven, chase mirages of British imperialism, or become a de-facto part of USA.

**Labour has no policies whatsoever, their long-term goal is to make the permanent war economy palatable for their own corporatist nostalgia for 1960s-1970s, like the USA Democrats.

Similarities to the French situation are astounding, even if the stakes are less severe.

Since all the factions will blame each other, short of voters tactically voting, Farage will sweep clean the field, like Thatcher did.

[cosm1cmicr0wave]

lol they do look like knockoffs. Would love to watch this but it’s not on the channel four app/website and I’m not sure where else I could find it.

(They seem to have been removing all the old political stuff they did. They did something about Tony Blair running away because he was accused of murder and I can’t find that for the life of me. I’m very lazy and I don’t want a virus😔)

Anyway thanks for the ask and hopefully my tumblr doesn’t freak out like crazy again

[cindydacatpink]

F4 from Boys Over Flower but Political UK

New Labour (1997-2007)

- Tony Blair

- Gordon Brown

- Peter Mandelson

- Alastair Campbell

Cameron-Clegg Coalition (2010-2015)

- David Cameron

- Nick Clegg

- George Osborne

- Danny Alexander

[zero-love]

What are your feelings and views about Kier Starmer and this Labour government?

I have pretty mixed feelings!

I’m glad they’re not the Tories, but I don’t understand why they didn’t have pre-made plans to fix things like the NHS and social care. They were in opposition for 14 years and they’re just saying now that reform will come in a few years after they’ve done some research etc - when the Lib Dems have plans at least for social care which they say could be implemented immediately.

I think Rachel Reeves messed up with raising NI for businesses. I really wish she’d just ripped up the tax system - the country wanted change and if she’d introduced a better alternative, I don’t think the press or the markets would have been any more harsh than they currently are being. The whole Western world seems to be seeking radical change and I wish Labour would show that change doesn’t have to mean a lurch to the right or the left.

I think the government as a whole have been quite naive about anticipating public reactions to things like the Winter Fuel Allowance and Freebie-gate. The right-wing press have been overly harsh but Labour should have expected it and timed the Winter Fuel Allowance cut announcement better - perhaps with an earlier budget.

Freebie-gate was disappointing. Obviously the Tories were worse, and the press blew it all out of proportion, but I had hoped this government would be eager to avoid any hint of corruption given that they were partially elected on the back of public disapproval with Tory scandals.

I wish they’d consider Proportional Representation, and limiting donations to politicians and parties, especially from people like Elon Musk, and giving more power to local councils instead of allowing our system to remain one of the most centralised in the world.

But they won’t do most of that because they are Labour. Hoping for a Lib-Lab coalition in four years.

Thanks for the ask! xx

[tanadrin]

tbh the lib dems were left of labour throughout the 2000s as well, they were the anti-iraq war party. they then threw all their promises in the trash and went into coalition with the tories.

Yes, in hindsight it was just a tremendous mistake. Probably in foresight too, for that matter.

[mathematical-cheese]

Reminder that the UK isn't a two party system like the US. Sure Labour have the next largest number of seats but there are other parties, it literally doesn't have to be this way. Telling people "vote labour to get rid of the Tories" as if it's the only option is pessimistic and honestly doesn't really fix the problems because even "diluted Tory policies" are still going to carry on the legacy the Tories have set out just under a different banner. There are still parties much further left of the Tories than Labour are in the UK.

I'm not aware of the current polls and I know than neither Green nor the Lib Dems would have enough seats individually but I don't think a coalition is unobtainable. And that's not even mentioning the fact that in countries other than England, there are other major parties that can challenge Tory seats.

Also Labour are "diluted Tories" now but what is to stop them from moving further right towards the current Tory policiesafter elected? From what I've seen, their current strategy is to be the parts of the Tories that people aren't outraged by and have less extreme policies in the cases where they are (although Kier Starma advocating for the destruction of Gaza isn't exactly ''taking a slightly less extreme stance than to Tories). Who is to say they then won't just implement the shitter policies after they are elected anyway?

A general election will likely be in November right? That is months away and we can do a lot to advocate for voting for parties that aren't the Tories or Labour.

In the long term, think about maybe advocating for proportional representation and for other things that would fix the broken electoral system so that "Tories or Tories Lite" isn't even a thing people have to think about

[duchessofostergotlands]

if it's not a bother i would love to hear (well, read) you talk more about the fixed term parliaments act! (and just anything uk politics, really. they're very interesting and you're really good at explaining, so perfect combination)

No problem! I will do my best (I'm not a political expert or anything!). So a few misconceptions to clear up at the start which I think will be helpful in understanding the FTPA:

Every political system has positives and negatives. The UK doesn't have a single, codified constitution. That tends to blow people's minds and I get it. It does lead to ambiguity. We can't always clearly point to something that proves a politician broke a rule, and even if we can it's often optional. But on the flip side, it goes us flexibility. We won't reach a situation where we can't change a law because it's written in a special document from 250 years ago which is nigh on impossible to change.

Because we're a monarchy and have an unelected upper chamber - the House of Lords - people assume democracy isn't important to us. I won't argue democracy matters more to us but I think the fact that our lower house - the House of Commons - is elected is more important than in other countries where every part of the government is democratically elected. Many of our odd rules and traditions have their origins in the cementing of that balance of power during times like the Civil War, and the traditions are ways of reaffirming the notion that Parliament is the independent voice of the people. So a foundational principle of government is that they need to be able to do their job - push forward legislation. That doesn't mean there isn't scrutiny or challenge, but we prefer stability on the whole.

Let's apply these to the FTPA. Before and after the act you did have ambiguity because an election could be called at any time but we also had flexibility because an election could be called at any time. If the government couldn't command the confidence of the House - in other words if it couldn't pass certain legislation - the PM could call for an election and roll the dice to see if they can get more MPs. So before the FTPA there were certain things which were considered de facto no confidence votes. For example, if the government couldn't get enough votes to pass their budget into law then that would have led to a general election automatically under the convention.

The FTPA was passed in 2011 when the UK had a coalition government. The Tories didn't have enough MPs to get legislation through alone consistently so they formed an alliance with the Liberal Democrats. And in a show of good faith that the Tories weren't going to spring something like an election on the Lib Dems - as well as to satisfy the Lib Dems who have always been interested in electoral reform - they passed the FTPA which was basically a promise to hold elections every 5 years. They would only hold them earlier if 1) the government lost a vote of no confidence or 2) 2/3 of the government voted in favour. So you couldn't have the PM asking for an election whenever they wanted anymore. And they were at first successful. There was an election in 2015 - 5 years after the last one. Another in 2017 that was agreed by 2/3 of the house. There was certainly confusion - with some politicians believing that things like the budget vote being a de facto confidence vote was no longer the case under FTPA - but it was doing what it set out to do.

Then we get to 2019. Brexit. At the time Boris Johnson had a minority government, meaning he didn't have over 50% of the seats. And he lost every single one of his votes on Brexit. This meant that we had a situation where Boris couldn't get his legislation passed. Unable to pass significant legislation, he asked to call an early election but he lost that vote too. So that meant Boris couldn't pass any laws but he couldn't dissolve parliament to try and get more MPs to enable him to pass laws. It was deadlock. This is common in some other countries - I think of things like the budget shut downs in the US - but not here because of the second bullet point from above. Pre-FTPA Boris would have just called a snap election because the government couldn't function. But In the end he had to pass legislation to get an early election (that passed because he only needed a simple majority rather than 2/3 of the house). So after that experience both the Labour Party and the Conservatives recognised that the goal may have been admirable but that it went against two of those unwritten principles of government: flexibility and the ability of government to carry out its duty. It quickly became incredibly unpopular. The Conservatives said it "has led to paralysis at a time the country needed decisive action" while Labour said it had "stifled democracy and propped up weak governments." It was eventually repealed in 2022.

Basically do I understand why people find our system baffling? Totally. Do I think there is room for reform and it would be great if we could find something better? Sure. But for every ambiguity in our system, there is an opportunity for flexibility. We are a silly country, but we are actually pretty pragmatic underneath it. A lot of things in our political system sound like a terrible idea but we do them because more often than not they actually work out alright.