The coalition's Lib Dem conundrum

TrevorsDen

I am a tory who believes in strong armed forces and having 'the bomb'.

But perhaps you can tell Montgomerie that I am also one who is not falling over himself to replace trident, not like for like and not immediately. What is the threat, so what type of defence do we need?

Everyone needs to realise where we are on defence. Labour have promised the earth but the funds to deliver are not there. Programmes exist but no money to pay for them.

Geddit Mr M?? No Money. So what does he suggest? Well other than his usual shit stirring.

Our soldiers wear boots and carry bayonets, but otherwise Labour has left them under equipped for the wars we are fighting. Faced with that I know where my priorities lies, bearing in mind that Iran and N.Korea have no capability to track our nuclear submarines I think we can delay replacement for a little while yet. Maybe until we know what we want and what we can afford.

The LDs are in government and any lefty tendency is likely to drift to Labour. But ultimately that may well be countered by right wing labour voters swinging to them. But the government has to deliver (sorry implement) success first.

Steve Foley

Oh what a beautiful picture! The Lib-Dems have made their bed. Let them lie in it!

tomdaylight

The Lib Dems' problem ties in with what Francis Maude was heralding yesterday. When the Tories entered office as part of this coalition, they had a policy implementation unit that had been working for years and they were able to start making changes right away. They have been able to make big, bold and rather obvious changes over the past couple of months.

The Lib Dems however had no such unit; they were not ready for office (and indeed it doesn't help that most of their cabinet ministers are entirely new to their current briefs). Their sole headline-grabber in terms of policy, since the coalition was formed, has been the graduate tax - which didn't go down very well and won't be implemented.

Once the Lib Dems are able to point to specific achievements by their own cabinet ministers, particularly ones that tie into their own campaign platform, they will start having less of a problem in terms of the polls. But it's going to take longer for them to get to that point than it might have been if they had been prepared for office. At the moment, what they are doing is perceived as being achieved on the back of the Tories, and the electorate is wondering, why not just vote for the real thing?

It doesn't add up...

On the basis of these arguments, the government should be seeking to adopt the policies of UKIP, BNP and the Greens, all of whom have seen support fall sharply since the election. They should ditch anything that smacks of Labour policy, because they have seen a support resurgence - and they should ditch above all Tory policy, which has seen a big climb in support.

H I Manning

A sham dmocracy can't endure freedom of information. The Prime Minister reveals the sham when he claims that opinion pols are not worth consideration so far from an election. it seems we the electorate are held in justifiable contempt until three or four months before an eection. Until then the vested interests rule as indeed they would in a dictatorship. WHY then the unjustified expense of maintaining the window dressing inthe House of Commons?
The arms companies the Chemicle companies and of course the Oil Companies dictate policy regardless of whom we fools elect.

David Blake

Surely the further the Liberals sink, the less they can do about it? If they were up in the polls and the Conservatives down, they might be tempted to do a runner. But bring the coalition down now? What sort of election result would they get? And presumably there are no restrictions on early elections at present.
The only hope for the Liberals is that they can stay the course and people start liking them rather more than they do now. I'd be happy if they disappeared from Parliament forever.

Mr Samgrass

Cancelling Trident would also make a large inroad into the deficit, reducing pressure elsewhere.

It doesn't add up...

I'm not sure what Mr. Samgrass has in mind when he considers that cancelling Trident will have a big impact on the deficit: selling the existing subs and missiles to the Iranians, perhaps? The reality is that Trident replacement spending will have very little impact on the deficit in this Parliament.

Tulkinghorn

The beauty of all this is that the Liberals will be destroyed for a generation.Millibands men will ensure that the referendum on AV will fail.Labour in turn are a busted flush so we will get the Tory government we want

Dimoto

Take one poll and show the trend with a suppressed origin - isn't that a Labour trick ?
I'm sure any chartists on here will tell you that one little poll, does not a break out make.
LibDems are flat-lining at 15%, slightly below where they were before the election and the famous "Clegg bounce".

The most painless way to improve their poll rating, would be for Cameron to ask Clegg to do some foreign business too.
Brazil is a BRIC, why not ask Clegg to go and be nice to Brazil (and maybe Argentina - if the Argies are willing) ? Clegg's wife will be in her element and would go down well.
Photo' Ops guaranteed !!

Nicholas

Just confirms my suspicion that there is a very strong "communist masquerading as socialist" faction in Britain (q.v. QT audience) and that New Labour may have been ousted from government but they have not been destroyed. They still control the narrative through all the usual lefty-speak channels, including this one, and their remarkably effective "oblivious to reality" propaganda started from day one. It will just get worse as New Labour resurge, the new government continues to be cast as the villains of the piece and New Labour's dire 13 years are airbrushed out of history as the election recedes.

Unless the coalition can get a grip on the lefto-fascist propaganda and counter it effectively (I suggest a few high-profile corruption show trials of prominent lefty quangocrats - but they need to get New Labour's placemen and women out of police, justice and CPS posts first) this will be a one-term wonder and we will have a new New Labour government in less than 5 years time, probably led by that repulsive Communo-Nazi Balls. Then the screw will really turn and we'll end up with CCTV in our bedrooms and ID number tattoos.

Cameron needs to identify his "gang of four", expose them and prosecute them if he is going to kill New Labour's unfinished and far from dead cultural revolution. Too high a proportion of this country is in love with socialist ideals whilst turning a blind eye to socialist realities.

I don't think the political commentariat recognise what is at stake. They don't seem to grasp the poltical cynicism of Labour and all who support it.

John Richardson

'..it doesn't add up'
and
David Blake.

The above article IS confusing if you pretend that MPs exist to translate The Will Of The People into Law (allowing for appropriate personal judgement) defend the Realm, protect our freedom etc etc.

If you recognise instead that we are subject to a Godless, debased, corrupt and parasitic Ruling Class, things make a lot more sense.

(Oh, it also follows that the MSM ,above, are an important element in the corruption and the deceit; read any newspaper or see any televised political coverage.)

This explains the inversion of logic above, where less and less public support can mean more and more influence over decision making.

This is why Mr Cameron can fail to win the General Election and still insult the majority who disagree with him ie regarding Turkey most recently.
The voters do not count.
Instead, Office counts.

This is why Cameron can explain, above ,that 'we've got nearly five years'.
He means We, the Ruling Class, have five years until they have to lower themselves and go through the charade of the election process.

This is why he is so confident that neither 'events' nor any clash of principles will scupper the coalition.
It's a coalition of rulers against the ruled.
Not political servants against one another, competing to do our bidding or to fulfill their manifestos.

That makes more sense to me than...

"The pressure on David Cameron to make further concessions to the Lib Dems will be enormous......"

See what I mean ?

Fernando

I’m not surprised by the Libdem slump.
Any distinctive Libdem policies or viewpoints are not heard because they are part of the coalition. All we hear about on the TV and in the newspapers are the policies of the government and the Labour opposition. The face of the government is basically Cameron and Osborne; constitutional reform may be important but it’s a sideshow for most voters and Clegg’s profile will reflect this.

Before the election, Cable was often the expert chosen by the media to comment on economic matters and the Libdems had a particular view on Iraq. Now, we hear nothing distinctive. Even a re-think over Afghanistan is being orchestrated within the coalition by Cameron, rather than outside by the Libdems.

This is inevitable given the constraints of being in a very junior partner in a coalition – any coalition, not just one with the Tories. Perhaps they should watch what they wish for.
The key point s for me will be whether we see this slump reflected in local government, where there is no real evidence of that happening at the moment, and what happens at the end of five years when the coalition presumably dissolves and the party tries to fight the next election separately.

Mycroft

I agree with TrevorsDen, the replacement of Trident needs further consideration.

The LDs polling figures would have gone down fairly sharply too if they had entered coalition with Labour, it would be very interesting to know if they would have gone down as much. The overall figures don't necessarily give much of an idea about how they would do in individual seats, once they get hold of one they often become very firmly established. It is unbefitting of Tories to gloat over this, considering how ell the LDs have worked together with them in the coalition.

jamie

perhaps the left wing media should ask the opposite question.
if we had a lab/lib coalition where would we be?
1 a full scale sterling crisis,as all the labour mp are telling us they lied about cuts and they would not happen as quickly as they said in the election.
2 brown still as pm and a flight of capital out of london.london is a magnate for capital at the moment.
3 no reform of anything,same old and all these ludicrous quangocrats rooking us.
4 more public enquiries with no end date to enrich their legal friends.

in short a disaster.

where would the libs polling be then?

strapworld

Trevors Den is right. The only thing he is wrong on is a simple fact that families of our soldiers buy their boots because the ones supplied are useless! (I know, I paid!)

But this battle between the Treasury and the MOD is a false one. All Dr. Fox has to do is announce he will not be replacing Trident because he cannot afford it due to other pressures. Then just sit back and watch the muck hit the fan.

There is no way on earth that Cameron will want to be seen as killing orft our nuclear defence!

In response to John Richardson. I think 'ruling class' means common purpose. I wrote earlier that Cameron, speaking in India, stood before a banner proclaiming Common Purpose- which has its tentacles in almost everything involved in our society. A 'charity' would you believe and an organisation upon which no newspaper / magazine gives a column inch to! There are many sites on the internet trying to expose this 'charity' but even the fearless Fraser nelson is quiet on this EU sponsored 'ruling class' Perhaps it would be good for our democracy for an in depth study to be made of the influence on our public life by Common Purpose?

Kevin Leonard

people should remember that communication is a two way street and that at the moment the condemnations view of communication is we the conservatives will tell you what to say and you the Lib dems will say it .

davidk

Liberal Quislings deserve only scorn. I'm surprised they could find 12% from somwewhere given their numerous 180 degree turns on manifesto pledges. The public can smell a rat when they get a whiff of one.

John Richardson

'strapworld'

Common Purpose = ruling class.
Yes, thanks for reminding me of this semi-secret umbrella organisation/structure.
Always helps to name names.
(I didn't realise Mr Cameron was in front of a CP banner in India, them again I don't watch TV.)
I know it sounds conspiratorial, but I maintain that there is a conspiracy of the rulers over the ruled.
Common Purpose would be manifestation of, and a tool for, this conspiracy. Without CP they would invent something else & keep that semi-secret. Again, MSM co-operation would be essential.

Regs.

Ian Walker

Trident's a dud - against the foes where an SLBM would be useful (Russia, China, the US, the EU), they already have satellites that can detect a submerged submarine down to 500 feet. Trident has to come up to 150 to launch.

Developing a super-range high altitude bomber (e.g. Vulcan II, or buying a few B-2s) and some smaller tactical-sized nukes would keep us as a credible nuclear threat without the vast expense and could be used to invest in British aero-engineering rather than just handing cash to the US.

TomTom

TrevorsDen forgets that we are not talking about replacing Trident tomorrow. It is a long-gestation project like nuclear power stations. We are talking about replacing ageing nuclear submarines in 10 years time and phasing in the replacements so we don't have nuclear disasters with the old ones.

France has already started to renew her nuclear submarines, Britain has to lease its warheads from the USA in a deal negotiated by Macmillan - so we have to phase our replacement with US schedules or stump up the cost of building our own warheads too.

Lest we forget. The last time the Liberals were in Government they spent a fortune on Dreadnoughts, started war plans with France in 1912 to fight Germany; and never again held office.

It seems unreasonable to assume that getting back into office on the back of Conservative MPs is going to change the fact that this is their period in office at the beginning of the 21st Century and they will never hold office again.

TGF UKIP

"Nearly five years to go" Ho, ho,ho! No chance, matey. This absurd construct will be gone long before the end of 2012 with a Miliband ensconced in Downing Street and a disintegrated Tory Party.

What the Robinson programme made ever more clear was the visceral distaste the LibDems have for this farrago. What Robinson chose not to allude to, though, was the very weak postion this places Clegg in, now that the polls are tumbling.

Two things to bear in mind here; firstly that Clegg led his Party to a significant defeat in May by losing seats and secondly Clegg became Leader by defaut in 2007. He won only by the narrowest margin of 511 votes but 1500 votes were delayed by the Christmas post and their subsequent post-deadline counting indicated that had they been included Huhne and not Clegg would now be Leader.

While Huhne may now be slightly compromised in LibDem purists' eyes by being one of the Coalition negotiators, he would be instantly redeemed if it was he, and not Cable, who was the resignee to instigate the disintegration of the Coalition.

Moreover, it will be very much in the LibDems interest for the breakup to be as bloody and vituperative as they can make it. The nastier it is and the more allegations they can make against the Tories, the more likely they are to recoup their lost supporters and their polling position. Not great news for Labour but currently at 38% and with Dave as Leader why should they be too concerned. 600 or 650 seats to contest, matters not. The Miliband brothers are now playing for the early attainment of the supreme prize in British politics

TGF UKIP

Strapworld, Q1 - Why do you think it might be that "Even the fearless Fraser Nelson is quiet on this EU sponsored 'ruling class'"? Q2 - Is "the fearless" considered, or not considered, to be a quintessential villager?

TGF UKIP

PS, I should have added in my earlier post that one of the central planks in Huhne's leadership campaign was opposition to Trident.

He was almost certainly allocated Energy and "Climate Change" as it was deemed to be innocuous and uncontentious given that Dave is as daft/corrupt on the matter as he is.
However, you can almost see the Cabinet resignation statement now "Cannot be part of a government inflicting such damaging cuts on the poorest in our society while proceeding with such a wildly expensive, dangerous and unnecessary weapons system as Trident."

It will be interesting to see when and how quickly Clegg is replaced.

David Blake

People keep avoiding the key point.
The Liberals have burned their boats in joining the coalition. If they walk out now and their is an election, they won't get back the Labour supporters who actually made up a lot of the votes which they got in seats where labour had no chance; and they won't get Tories helping them win seats like Sheffield Hallam.
If they try to switch sides and put Labour in, they destroy the argument that coalition government can be stable government. Check Clegg's speech the day after the election. The point of going for coalition is to make the sort of government which would be inevitable under PR look safe.
So the Liberals are doomed unless they stay with the coalition. Why shoud the Tories do things which might switch votes from Conservatives to Liberals. It would be almost as stupid as Peter Mandelson's response after the fist debate, when he rushed around telling everyone that Clegg was the winner. It seemed odd at the time that Labour's campaign manager was saying "Vote Liberal." It would be even odder for cameron to say it now. yet that is what all this talk about helping the Liberals comes down to. Let them rot.

Mycroft

davidk, it is absurd to call the LDs 'Quislings' because they are supporting policies in a coalition that they did not advocate at the election; it is only possible to have a coalition on the basis of a shared programme. Also, that presupposes that the Conservatives are Nazis; I suppose that if they had gone in with Labour, that would have been imaginative cooperation. On this matter, we could do without the humbug.

Major Plonquer 1

Trident? I think the Liberals have it absolutely correct. Ban the damned thing.

It's stupid anyway to base a country's entire defence strategy on a chewing gum.

Richard of York

Tridents a dud hey?
well its been so long since anyone tested one you might be right.
Best we don't tell anyone and do a Saddam.
Or maybe we could blow up an island like Grand Caymen just to see which fat cats have their money stashed there.
Should at least be a good token gesture to Iran and N Korea.