CHUTZPAH AND THE LIB DEMS


The Lib Dems currently enjoy a level of popularity, as measured in the opinion polls, marginally above that of anthrax. Nick Clegg, the leader of the party, has a rating of -47.
None of this bothers him, or them; he and they are cheerful, take time to contemplate the beauty of the autumn season, happy in the knowledge that the consensus is that whoever comes top in the coming general election they are unlikely to win an overall majority. Enter the Lib Dems stage right, or left, depending on how they choose to present themselves. In short whoever you vote for, the Lib Dems will get in.

For a party forever railing against perversity in the electoral system they proclaim themselves happy to benefit from an election result in which, having been rejected by the overwhelming majority of the electorate, they would decide who governs and what policies are acceptable. This, to put it mildly, is a bit rich; the Yiddish word is chutzpah.
 
Whoever you vote for I'll Get in
I want therefore to engage in a little party pooping, an activity much to be recommended when confronted by persons as smug, self satisfied and ‘morally superior’ as the Lib Dems.

Here are a few scenarios to burst the pretty little orange balloon.

a)    Nick Clegg is defeated in Sheffield Hallam. This, though not easy, would not be impossible. With Lib Dem votes haemorrhaging to Labour and the UKIP squeezing the Tories, Labour could just come through the middle. A lot of students voted for Nick last time, I wouldn't count on them doing the same again. This of itself of course does not prevent a coalition, but would seriously hole the Lib Dem’s below the water line, particularly if some other major Lib Dem players lost their seats.
b)    Labour or Tories call Clegg’s bluff. This involves several possible electoral outcomes. 1. Labour is the largest party but refuses a coalition, offering merely a supply and confidence agreement.* The Lib Dems could of course reject this, but to do so they would have then to force an immediate general election. The electorate would take a dim view. 2.The Tories are the largest party, however Cameron has his hands forced to opt for this option by his right wing, who could no longer stomach a period of coalition with, ‘the odious,’  Lib Dems.
c)     The same might be true of the Labour party, if Nick Clegg and the right wing coterie around him continue to run the Lib Dems. Could Labour really go into coalition with the perfidious Mr Clegg?
d)    Clegg attempts a further period of Coalition with the Tories but his party finally revolt at the prospect. The Lib Dems split between a minority rump of ‘Cleggites’ and the rest of the party.

Of course either the Tories or Labour could win a majority, though this looks extremely unlikely with respect to the Tories. In which case all the scenarios indicated above, with the exception of scenario a, are rendered redundant. The prospect of Labour winning an outright majority is the subject of Clegg’s worst nightmares, though as I say there are other scenarios to burst his happy dreams of being forced to choose between two suitors.
For my self, on a cold night when the rain spatters against the window pane, I find contemplating these scenarios a source of inner warmth.


 *This is a process whereby minority parties offer support to a larger party only with respects to budgets and ‘confidence’ motions the loss of which would trigger a general election. 



Having visited this page I would be grateful for your feedback, either tick one of the boxes below or make a comment via the comments button.

Popular posts from this blog

NESRINE MALIK AND THE UNSUNG VIRTUES OF HYPOCRISY

Image
As I write this a 27 year old woman, Mariam Ibrahim, has just had a baby in a Sudanese prison, ‘the condition of the mother and baby is not known as Ibrahim's lawyer and her husband, a US citizen, had been denied access to her. Omdurman women's prison has a basic clinic, where the child is thought to have been born. Ibrahim has been shackled since being imprisoned.’ [1]   Mariam also has an 18 month old child who is also being held in prison with her. The ‘crime’ for which she is imprisoned is apostasy, for which she has received the death sentence. She has also been sentenced to 100 lashes, for the additional crime of having sex with her Christian husband. Although she has been a lifelong Christian her father was a Muslim, Sudanese sharia law forbids women to marry outside the Muslim faith, men needless to say can do as they please in these matters. Mariam Ibrahim and her husband.  Nineteen countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 12 of those countries...
Read more

INTERVIEW WITH TOM VAGUE

Image
Tom Vague At the top end of All Saints Road there is a refuge, an enclave in which a local Bohemian culture retains a foothold, this is the Book & kitchen , a café/bookshop with adjoining terrace. Here the bustle of the nearby market gives way to conversation, conversation in the presence of images of the recent, and not so recent, past. The past of an area that has contributed so much to the life and culture of the city. I was there to meet local historian Mr Tom Vague a man intimately familiar with so much of this history. What Tom doesn’t know about the recent history of the area probably is not worth knowing. With Tom’s energy and effort Colville Community Forum, supported by City Living Local Life, recently held a gathering at The Book and Kitchen to celebrate this rich history. February 16 6-9 Pm, with Film Screening and Readings Exhibition February 16-26 2016. Featuring 30 Classic Westway Photographs and Posters. This represents one of a number of initiatives of t...
Read more

VOLINE AND TROTSKY

Волин и Троцкого A Footnote in Russian History In April 1917 the Russian anarchist revolutionary Voline* and Leon Trotsky were both stranded in New York as the Russian revolution broke out in Petrograd , inevitably coming into contact with one another. Voline stated that he felt that the Bolsheviks, given their ruthlessness and single minded determination, would ultimately come to power. They would then begin eliminating their opponents, amongst whom of course were the anarchists; this persecution would end with the Bolsheviks shooting the anarchists “like partridges.” Trotsky was dismissive, they might have their differences but they were comrades in arms, they had different interpretations of the revolutionary process but shared the same goals. It was nonsense to speak of Bolsheviks shooting revolutionary comrades, “we are socialists, comrade Voline! So we are not your enemies….” [1] In December of 1919, whilst gravely wounded Voline was captured by the Bolshe...
Read more