The fact is, a lot of the budget is nasty and not inevitable.
True, no argument there. Thing is, it's palpably obvious it would've been a lot worse without LD influence. Tactically and strategically, I think Labour are playing this wrong.
They should be showing an alternative, and making the LDs feel there was a different option, highlighting that working with Labour would be possible, that the Tories weren't the only option.
Carping on about 'betrayal' and similar all the time is palpably wrongfooted; there's a real feeling in LD circles that it was Labour who betrayed us, which is why Clegg and others will repeatedly talk about the 13 years thing; when they came in, we were very hopeful, and LD MPs were on Cabinet committees and similar. But apart from a very early surge, nothing.
Clegg said before the election when appealing to former Labour voters "it's not you betraying Labour, it's they who betrayed you", and he was right.
they can't say exactly what would be cut and how, no more than the Tories would before they got elected and had had a chance to look at the books.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Tories couldn't look at the books because they weren't in office and couldn't look at them. But LAbour's only just left office, has had full access to the books for 13 years, and, um, Osborne's published them anyway as part of open government process.
Labour could offer alternatives. If they were good enough, they could actually break the coalition.
As it is, they're strengthening LD resolve to stick with it, as they're not giving any other choice.
If AV comes in at the next GE, they'll need to appeal to 2nd preferences to get anywhere. In many seats, they'll need to appeal to LD supporting swing voters anyway.
I Really think this is a tactical error. Sure, the Govt should be attacked, opposed, etc. But concentrating pretty much all their fire on the junio partner and alienating them completely, which is what they're currently doing, is daft.
when the local Lib Dems here stop sending me leaflets attacking the Labour party for not forming a coalition and being a little over jubilant beating Labout into third place
The first part is inevitable, it's called rebuttal, Labour keep saying that the LDs are betrayers, but it was Labour who refused a deal. Can't have it both ways.
Latter makes tactical sense, LDs can only win in a seat if people believe they can win, emphasising second place on pretty much every leaflet is standard practice. If Labour hadn't broken their electoral reform pledge of 1997, it'd be different, but...
You are, at least, being constructive, and I do appreciate that, and I completely agree on many points about the bloody awful negative points within the budget. But there are good points, and the bad points were lessened, and that's due to LD influence.
That's what I signed up for after all, it's how coalition politics works.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2010-Jun-23, Wednesday 14:33 (UTC)True, no argument there. Thing is, it's palpably obvious it would've been a lot worse without LD influence. Tactically and strategically, I think Labour are playing this wrong.
They should be showing an alternative, and making the LDs feel there was a different option, highlighting that working with Labour would be possible, that the Tories weren't the only option.
Carping on about 'betrayal' and similar all the time is palpably wrongfooted; there's a real feeling in LD circles that it was Labour who betrayed us, which is why Clegg and others will repeatedly talk about the 13 years thing; when they came in, we were very hopeful, and LD MPs were on Cabinet committees and similar. But apart from a very early surge, nothing.
Clegg said before the election when appealing to former Labour voters "it's not you betraying Labour, it's they who betrayed you", and he was right.
Sorry, that doesn't wash. Tories couldn't look at the books because they weren't in office and couldn't look at them. But LAbour's only just left office, has had full access to the books for 13 years, and, um, Osborne's published them anyway as part of open government process.
Labour could offer alternatives. If they were good enough, they could actually break the coalition.
As it is, they're strengthening LD resolve to stick with it, as they're not giving any other choice.
If AV comes in at the next GE, they'll need to appeal to 2nd preferences to get anywhere. In many seats, they'll need to appeal to LD supporting swing voters anyway.
I Really think this is a tactical error. Sure, the Govt should be attacked, opposed, etc. But concentrating pretty much all their fire on the junio partner and alienating them completely, which is what they're currently doing, is daft.
The first part is inevitable, it's called rebuttal, Labour keep saying that the LDs are betrayers, but it was Labour who refused a deal. Can't have it both ways.
Latter makes tactical sense, LDs can only win in a seat if people believe they can win, emphasising second place on pretty much every leaflet is standard practice. If Labour hadn't broken their electoral reform pledge of 1997, it'd be different, but...
You are, at least, being constructive, and I do appreciate that, and I completely agree on many points about the bloody awful negative points within the budget. But there are good points, and the bad points were lessened, and that's due to LD influence.
That's what I signed up for after all, it's how coalition politics works.