tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post5133778344101444566..comments2024-03-28T22:32:50.562+00:00Comments on Liberal England: A Fresh Start for Britain smells a little staleJonathan Calderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00730157683743989696noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-21985057327799712992009-07-27T12:24:07.576+01:002009-07-27T12:24:07.576+01:00That is indeed the question left hanging.
It looks...That is indeed the question left hanging.<br />It looks to me as if the whole 'Fresh start' thing is designed to make us look like sound and reliable coalition partners for Cameron if the Tories don't get an overall majority.<br />Call me an old cynic if you like, but there is an echo of the mid '90s 'end of equidistance' much touted at the time.Steve Comerhttp://www.stevecomer.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-72164575663628749522009-07-24T13:51:47.913+01:002009-07-24T13:51:47.913+01:00"The better educated you are, the more likely..."The better educated you are, the more likely you are to hold liberal rather than conservative values." So that's why all those public school types vbote they way they do.<br /><br />Clegg seems to be following the same approach as Labour - reacting to each drop in support with a shift to the right - which is invariably met by another drop in support and another shift to the right. As a result the centre-right is getting awfully crowded, while ever large swathes of the electorate become effectively disenfranchised - who do you vote for if you oppose tuition fees, benefit cuts, and more privatisation of public services?<br /><br />The tuition fees debacle is a signal failure of liberal values. The reason for their introduction, that graduates have higher earnings so should contribute more, actually proves the opposite that university education pays for itself in the form of higher tax revenues - while deterring those from lower income groups will prove counter-productive by lowering aggregate earnings and tax receipts.<br /><br />The New Liberals recognised this but Clegg's remains in thrall to the neoliberals.<br /><br />The question left hanging is - why would anyone vote Lib Dem when they offer exactly the same range of 'tough choices' as the Lab/Tory alliance?lifeonmarsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-37288222117758708942009-07-24T10:44:24.567+01:002009-07-24T10:44:24.567+01:00The evidence for the lack of support for the Liber...The evidence for the lack of support for the Liberal Democrats among the elderly is in two polls.<br /><br />An ICM poll conducted for the BBC at the 2005 general election (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/issues/4520847.stm#graph) showed that Lib Dem support was highest among the 18-24 and 25-34 age groups (26% in both cases) and lowest amongst the over-65s (18%). This was despite the fact that the party's general election manifesto that year was heavily skewed towards the interests of the elderly.<br /><br />A more recent ICM poll (October 2008 - see: http://extras.newsoftheworld.co.uk/polls/notw-marginals-bpc.pdf) underlined this trend; Lib Dem support was strongest in the 25-34 age group at 31% and weakest among the over-65s at only 4% (unadjusted figures).<br /><br />The reason is basically this: the most important factor determining the extent to which one has small-l liberal values is education. The better educated you are, the more likely you are to hold liberal rather than conservative values. Our current generation of over-65s went to school in the 1930s/40s/50s, when most people left school at 15 or 16 without qualifications, and no more than 5% went to university.<br /><br />This generation also first had the vote when the Liberal Party was at its lowest ebb and class-consonant voting at its highest, and is therefore more likely to have a strong attachment to Labour or the Tories.<br /><br />I wrote at more length on the nature of Lib Dem support here: <br />http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-the-bnp-membership-list-and-the-lessons-for-lib-dems-6175.htmlSimon Titleynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-14071397833955222702009-07-23T21:28:04.251+01:002009-07-23T21:28:04.251+01:00I think you need to distinguish a bit more between...I think you need to distinguish a bit more between what Nick is quoted as saying, and the Independent's interpretation of it.<br /><br />Nick says very clearly that we will NOT be ditching any policies, just that we may not be able to (honestly) promise to deliver them imemdiately.<br /><br />In the current financial situation that seem sensible to me.<br /><br />Liberal Neil.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6606798.post-81985995724228684032009-07-23T19:11:35.420+01:002009-07-23T19:11:35.420+01:00I agree with almost all of that - particularly the...I agree with almost all of that - particularly the lack of liberty.<br /><br />But I think you've missed something. As you've read my piece yesterday, I must have been a bit too cryptic!<br /><br />"We are saying that we will not change the level of taxation in the economy. And we will not change the level of public spending."<br /><br />Actually... We're not. We *used* to be, but not any more. As I pointed out yesterday, if you read it carefully, we're saying we won't lower the overall level of taxation, and we won't raise the overall level of public spending. It carefully doesn't rule out raising taxes or cutting spending to plug the debt!Alex Wilcockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03364653159038708678noreply@blogger.com