A thread for progressives

It would be nice if the tories invited caroline lucas to talks too..a lib dem/tory/green coalition is what this country needs. (I know greens are lefties in terms of taxation but green issues need a very high profile in my opinion)

I liked David Cameron's speech on Friday and what I heard from Michael Gove yesterday. I would like to see a coalition working in the national interest as they suggest. Surely this would curb the worst excesses of the tories and give the liberal democrats more exposure and experience. I don't like the tribalism of British politics. The reality is that whichever party we voted for at the election we probably liked some but not all of their policies therefore the parties need to work together more so that good policies/ideas from all sides are adopted and unpopular ones are scrapped. If we had a tory landslide no one would be able to oppose any policy as the tories would always command more votes and get everything through without question.

I don't think the tories/lib dems are too far apart on transport, the environment or education.

The managing the deficit issue is interesting. Having voted Lib Dem I still think that something needs to be done this year but probably not the 6 billion figure the tories quoted. There are some things like CT Funds that could be scrapped to save the country some money without causing huge job losses. The teachers could have a lot of their paperwork removed this year so they can focus on teaching. Even though I voted lib dem I agree with David Cameron that the current inheritance threshold is too low but I don't think it needs to be raised as far as 2 million. Why don't they raise it to £750,000 a compromise. If it is left where it is all that happens is the rich don't pay it as they can afford to pay an accountant to manage their finances and it becomes a tax on the middle classes in normal family homes.

My Mum who has always voted lib dem liked Cameron's plan for the over 65s to pay a one off fee of £8000 for care homes.

On the other hand I think the lib dems were right that the tax system should be fairer and that the banks should be split so that the high street banks are not involved in risky deals.

On Europe I think most British people want to keep the £. However I feel worried by the way the tories have aligned themselves to odd groups in Europe rather than the main parties in France/Germany. Whilst there is a lot that is wrong with the EU there are benefits of being part of it..eg. with the volcanic ash saga passengers using EU airlines had greater protection/compensation.

I voted Lib Dem and I feel closer to the Tories than Labour. I would never describe today's Labour party as progressive. If the Lib Dems want to prove their point about PR then a successful coalition with the Tories is a golden opportunity. Conversely a cobbled together coalition with all the other losing parties would show up everything that's potentially bad about PR.

So the Equal Franchise Act 1928 and the independent taxation of married women in 1990 weren't progressive then?

I have always voted Lib Dem. I loathe the labour party and will never vote for them even tactically. The labour party is still partly funded by the unions. Tony Blair was an awful PM who led us into war in Iraq. The labour party are mainly townies and don't understand the country/market town folk. They don't care about the environment - are trying to build 3rd runway at heathrow. During the past 13 yrs they have channelled an awful lot of money into their heartlands leaving hospitals in other areas in a dire state. They have not managed the economy well - PFI has not yet come home to roost. The labour Mps on the whole come across as less able than their tory or lib dem opponents.

I feel sickened by the way the labour party are crawling up to the lib dems now..the only reason is the labour party don't want to be out of power. They have had 13 years to give the country a fairer voting system and have done nothing.

I think you have a very skewed view of the right Jenny. Many Tories benefit from minimum wage; paid maternity leave (I did under the Tories in 1995/6); equal pay (I've always had that, under the Tories from 1990-1997 and then Labour continued it).

I have reservations about social reform in that I don't think it can be hurried through - it takes time for things like Civil Partnerships to be accepted as the norm - because people need time to adjust. Add into that the fact that the electorate holds varying religious beliefs, have a wide age range and are also influenced by where they live, so may not see many ethnic minorities, gay relationships etc and pushing it through can be counter productive. This has been evident in the way that some on the left seem intent on doing down those who are married, and those who have the temerity to be white, able-bodied and male (as I saw on MN last week). Your skin tone and your gender aren't easily changed!

Multi member super constituencies wouldn't necessarily take away the link. In fact it could increase contact because different parties MPs would be competing with each other to be seen to do the best for their constituents. Self-serving? Yes, but with beneficial side-effects.

Am a lib dem and think clegg is in a very tough position. I very much hope for some electoral reform but am not sure the Tories would go for that. However despite the wishes of Labour supporters, I don't think the lib dems should prop up a labour govt which the public have largely rejected esp as we also did not do too well. If nothing comes from these talks, I personally think we need to move for another election asap.

I don't like the idea of super constituencies as it takes away the link with the MP; and for me that is important.

I think that Clegg is sensible talking to the Tories and is being shown as a mature politician in that he is concentrating on the economy first. He would be punished at the polls next time if he just concentrated on the PR issue instead of the bloody mess we are in.

Frakkin, I think STV's a much better idea than MMP (speaking as a New Zealander, where we've got it).

I'm not sure if you need a % bar under STV.

Chairman Mao was a progressive. There is something odd about the term progressive, which vesela has touched upon. It's difficult to put one's finger on it exactly. It is clearly spin par excellence, and that's why it is somewhat smug and patronising. The use of the term progressive by certain parties implies that progress will only be brought about by them, and that the other side is regressive. It is a way of fooling people, like saying we are the caring, listening party and implying that the other parties aren't. It is a clever form of propaganda, that sweeps people along and possibly removes some of their critical thinking when analysing other parties. It is a bit of a catch-all term that implies that change and reform is good. The problem is that it can be appropriated by many nasty parties who also want to implement change and reform.

The LDs have more than one policy.... They're not just 'the party with PR'

I'm sure it is. But their leaders - if you listen now - say they are working for the national good and when they list the priorities 'electoral reform' is not the first thing they say any more. It's a subtle change but I think it's significant.

I support PR. It seems insane that we have the situation I describe - 36% of the vote and different outcomes. +95 seats but because there was a larger difference last time no clear outcome.

BUT I would want to see it thoroughly researched, workable proposals and mature politicians who can reach accommodations. I think we also need to see more powerful minority parties like the Greens able to form influential voting blocks and a redesign of the commons! Our system is by it's very nature adversarial and I don't think that's necessarily healthy.

My ideal - PR, super-constituencies, STV and a % bar

or possibly PR by MMP...

I'm pro-Europe but have other right-wing views. Politically confused - yep.

I should add that there is no deal that would be acceptable to all Conservative voters either. That's the nature of compromise (progressive) politics....

"Chill: I know you're right, but what sort of deal would be acceptable to LD voters?"

There is almost no deal that would be acceptable to all LD voters.... not even one that guarantees PR, I daresay, although that might mollify some. However, if PR is what they say we all need to be truly democratic and representative then accepting the 'can't-please-everyone' scenario is something we'll all have to suck up and live with. So they're going to have to lead by example and stop whingeing.