Tuesday, 11 May 2010

The numbers just don't stack up

Like a many other LibDem bloggers this morning, I never thought I'd say this but...

Clearly my heart says "progressive alliance" but the numbers just aren't there.

Even is we could get it to work in a stable way, we would only get electoral reform if all of the alliance voted for it, including all of Labour. I'm really not sure you would get that. There are a lot of fierce opponents of reform out there (witness Labour "big beasts" all over the media slagging us off).

Word is that Labour have dropped the referendum requirement and will just legislate for AV, however Harriet Harman on newsnight last night was rowing back from this. (also I question the legitimacy of this)

Bizarrely, I think you can trust the Tories more on electoral reform! We know they are against it.
I think Nick Clegg has played a blinder, who'd have thought the Tories would be offering us a referendum on AV? If this is part of a published open agreement, I trust that it will be delivered and we know the Tories will then campaign against a change. However AV (yes, it's only a small step, not PR) is a hell of a lot easier to sell than anything that smells of a politicians stitch up (even if that's not true). It has only (albeit small) advantages over the current system (no tactical voting, better chance for independents).

We suffer either way (the drawback of coalition under FPTP) by one wing of our voters potentially boycotting us next time but I'm sick of all this LibDem hate from "progressive" pro-PR types. We're the ones arguing for it! What about Labour who have had 13 years! Why not hate them? Besides it is clearly the point that it does not have a parliamentary majority (and was not voted for by the electorate).

However, if we can show clear policy wins out of a LibCon deal then we may be able to salvage some credibility and also the boost of doing the right thing and providing a stable government must have it's upsides politically. (Think of the damage caused by being seen to be a member of an unstable "coalition of the losers", think of the resulting Tory landslide)

So, assuming we've got good policy concessions and yes, sup with a long spoon and watch your back, but we should go with the Tories (eek!). However surely we can't countenance Michael "prison works" Howard as justice secretary? We must be able to veto that!

Sunday, 2 May 2010

Top Tory ran prayer sessions to "cure" gays

Philippa Stroud, tory candidate in Sutton & Cheam (we'll hold this seat, right?) who is also big in IDS's Centre for Social Justice has some very dubious views, according to this Observer article.

It worries me that people like this may soon have their grubby little hands on the levers of power...

Saturday, 1 May 2010

Telegraph admit support for LibDems isn't just a post-debate blip

Well they didn't mean to but they've caught themselves out!

Several LibDem bloggers at the time pointed out that contary to the prevailing media narrative that we only gained support due to a post-debate X-factor style (oh, silly voters, won't you come to your senses) blip, an ICM poll taken before the debate had actually put us at 27% showing the surge had already started.

It was convenient for the media to gloss over this fact in order to give the impression above.

Oh dear, what a tangled web we weave...it seems the Telegraph can't remember it's own lies! In the pathetically titled "Poll blow for Nick Clegg as voters think twice" when trying to argue the reverse of before, this time that the LibDem poll lead has plunged, they have bought the same fact into play that they'd previously tried to hide. They say:

"Mr Clegg’s party is down three points to 27 per cent – the same level it was on in an ICM poll at the time of the first televised debate."