When will the Lib Dems sweep to power?

[taffboy gwyrdd]

PR aint the be all and end all.

1) Why would torylabour give LDs a system that suits them if they as the larger party can wangle something else

2) LDs need to be very careful a PR system doesnt bolster The Greens too much, under such a system The Greens could easily take 3rd place being more clearly progressive and radical.

 

[cybertect]

Ah no. It grew out of the Beveridge Report, which was certainly written by a Liberal peer (and somebody who should be commemorated with statues all over the country) but it was not the Liberals who set it up.

It's not all about 1946 and all that, you know. Beveridge's report was important, but he was building on foundations laid over thirty years before

During Lloyd-George's tenure as Chancellor, the 1908 Old Age Pensions Act introduced a non-contributory national pension for those aged over seventy.

The National Insurance scheme was subsequently established by the 1911 National Insurance Act, providing medical and unemployment cover on a compulsory contributory basis.

 

[lobster]

PR aint the be all and end all.
.

sure , its stepping stone though

 

[Azrael]

The Lib Dems, being new and relatively unutarnished (through irrelevance, in the main) could take over from Labour when that pointless, lumbering beast collapses. One more term in power could do it.

I don't see who'd benefit though. All the Lib Dems have going for them is civil libertarianism, and this is, at best, lukewarm. Their libertarian credentials are already shaky and riddled with compromise -- this is the party that supports 14 days' detention without charge and closing our borders to foreigners promoting "hate speech" -- and could well evaporate with power. Since the party is riddled with social democrats, who's to say that, with actual power, this wing couldn't push out the liberal wing.

The over-riding Fabian/social democratic agenda that infests both Labour and now the Tories wouldn't be going anywhere. Neither would Britain's loss of independence to the EU. A Lib Dem government see only a change of management and profusion of silly yellow signs.

 

[FridgeMagnet]

I suppose I am projecting my opinions onto the Lib Dems. Its just my partner and I are both members of the Lib Dems. I joined because of him. Its nice to do things together. We are both members of our local party. I don't know. I find it hard to break away from my partner and what he is involved in. Pathetic eh.

There are other things one can do as a couple - watercolours perhaps, or badminton.

 

[greenman]

I think there is slightly more chance of a military coup (once the economic/resource/energy/climate shit really hits the fan) than the Lib Dems "sweeping to power". (of course, this being Britain, it would not call itself a military coup, but like in Thailand, "the monarchy and supporters stepping in to provide national government in a crisis")

 

[kabbes]

The Lib Dems, being new and relatively unutarnished (through irrelevance, in the main) could take over from Labour when that pointless, lumbering beast collapses. One more term in power could do it.

I don't see who'd benefit though. All the Lib Dems have going for them is civil libertarianism, and this is, at best, lukewarm. Their libertarian credentials are already shaky and riddled with compromise -- this is the party that supports 14 days' detention without charge and closing our borders to foreigners promoting "hate speech" -- and could well evaporate with power. Since the party is riddled with social democrats, who's to say that, with actual power, this wing couldn't push out the liberal wing.

The over-riding Fabian/social democratic agenda that infests both Labour and now the Tories wouldn't be going anywhere. Neither would Britain's loss of independence to the EU. A Lib Dem government see only a change of management and profusion of silly yellow signs.

But I think that having civil libertarianism as your central philosophy is increasingly important, even if there are some compromises made in policy. Sometimes it's not just about where you stand, but which direction you're looking in. They're the only tonic to an extreme strand of authoritarianism that is gathering pace in both the Tories and Labour.

The problem is that nobody seems to care about this authoritarianism. I talk about it with people whenever I can and I always get the same response -- "I obey the law so I'm not too worried." By the time I've finished talking with them, I've normally made some headway into this view, but it's like trying to empty an ocean with a spoon. Unless something radical happens, we're going to sleepwalk into a seriously, deeply authoritarian society and the LibDems may well look increasingly out of place until they are as marginalised as the current SWP or Green Party. But I'll keep voting for them anyway.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

The problem is that nobody seems to care about this authoritarianism.

I don't think this is true - it's just that the number of people who don't care exceeds the number who do. This is why the Lib Dems pick up a lot of votes from people who used to vote Labour and also why Labour feels safe enough in ignoring that trend.

I doubt that it is their central philosophy, by the way - because I don't think they have one. But it is perhaps one area in which the absence of anything concrete makes them more attractive than the other main parties and why at a frontbench level they don't look quite as repugnant as the Big Two.

 

[kabbes]

Maybe if enough people join the LibDems thinking that it is their central philosophy, it will become that by default?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Maybe if enough people join the LibDems thinking that it is their central philosophy, it will become that by default?

Maybe but it's more likely that their central philosophy will remain "adapting ourselves to whichever floating vote we're currently most interested in chasing".

 

[belboid]

Sorry but I do not recall the alliance getting 50% in opinion polls in the 80s.

I think I do. Around the time of the Crosby by-election, it vertainly had substantial leads voer the other two, even if not quite fifty per cent. Blown away by the Falklands of course.

When will they sweep to power? Never.

 

[butchersapron]

The Lib Dems are a complete irrelevance.

Not in the event of a hung parliament or a small majority govt reliant on their votes. The Unionists were tiny but not an irrelvance during a good chunk of thr later tory years in those circumstances.

 

[kabbes]

I don't know, Donna. The Lib Dems were fundamentally built on the idea of Laissez Faire. True, this is an economic rather than civil principle, but they inevitably end up cross-pollinating. I do see a consistent strand of starting with the principle of libertarianism in all their policies and their approach to issues for at least as long as I've been interested in politics. It may sometimes be a bastardised form, but it tends to at least look in the right direction. I think it is overly cynical to say that it is because of a chasing of floating voters. They're hardly the most successful party on the block.

 

[belboid]

I don't know, Donna. The Lib Dems were fundamentally built on the idea of Laissez Faire.

I think you are thinking of the Liberal Party, which was wound up twenty years ago. The lib-dems may owe that party much, but they are not the same thing, not by a medium length piece of chalk.

 

[kabbes]

Fair play. But a party is only really made up of popular perception and internal activists. A party that rises from the ashes of a prior party will share the perceptions and activists of its predecessor, so it isn't unreasonable to assume a similar philosophy.

 

[belboid]

similar, but quite distinct. How many modern lib-dems are really into classical economic Laissez Faire? Not that many I wouldn't have thought. Indeed the pre-merger liberals probably owed more to hippy greenism than they did to their original founding philosophy.

 

[butchersapron]

To be honest, i'm not sure any mass membership mainstream parties think in those explicitly political ideological terms anymore. (what is the lib-dems membership anyway). They think in terms of tactics rather than politics.

 

[belboid]

about 60,000 I believe

 

[kabbes]

And that's why I hate party politics! Loathe it, in fact (as per previous threads).

But that brings me to another reason to vote LibDem -- they're the only one of the three mainstream parties to have PR as a policy. I think PR could start to reduce the influence of party politics, which I'd love to see happen. (Or maybe it would make it worse, I suppose. But I've never been a believer in "better the devil you know...")

 

[Donna Ferentes]

similar, but quite distinct. How many modern lib-dems are really into classical economic Laissez Faire? Not that many I wouldn't have thought.

Well, they're pretty much into free markets, if the Orange Book is any guide.

 

[butchersapron]

about 60,000 I believe

In terms of mass membership - that's pretty poor. I know there's a general mainstream membership crisis right now, but i thought they'd have at least 100 000

 

[kabbes]

Another question springs to mind, actually: is there anything actually wrong with a protest vote that is made by popular perception of policy rather than actual policy? If you hate the direction of the current government but also hate the other lot and if there is a popular perception of a third alternative that you respond to, it is the perception itself that will be picked up by pollsters and may influence future policy, if it is perceived to be popular.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

That's true up to a point. And people don't just vote for what a party actually says, anyway. I think it's partly that some people, myself included, find it annoying that the Lib Dems are able to play both sides of the street at the same time and get away with it.

 

[belboid]

Well, they're pretty much into free markets, if the Orange Book is any guide.

well, aren't they all? But they do believe in a little bit more state regulation than I would assume from someone with an LF background.

 

[kabbes]

Well, tbf, Labour believe in a lot less nationalisation than I would assume from someone with a workers' rights background.

 

[dennisr]

Pathetic eh.

Yes

 

[Oswaldtwistle]

More chance of Heathrow buliding a third runway for the purposes of Flying Pig Landings


(and Boris Johnson opening it)

 

[rapattaque]

I don't know, Donna. The Lib Dems were fundamentally built on the idea of Laissez Faire. True, this is an economic rather than civil principle, but they inevitably end up cross-pollinating. I do see a consistent strand of starting with the principle of libertarianism in all their policies and their approach to issues for at least as long as I've been interested in politics. It may sometimes be a bastardised form, but it tends to at least look in the right direction. I think it is overly cynical to say that it is because of a chasing of floating voters. They're hardly the most successful party on the block.

This.

And may i also add that for everything they may or may not be, they are not riddled with the kind of nincompoops who sit on the Labour and Tory benches and pass for politicians nowadays.

 

[elbows]

More people would probably vote Lib Dem if they thought it wasnt a wasted vote, that there was a real chance they could get into power.

But if the Lib Dems had a realistic chance of winning, they would probably feel the need to stop saying some of the things that currently make some people want to vote for them in the first place.

 

[ericjarvis]

So far Donna Ferentes seems to be the only person describing the Lib Dems as they are in my experience. Now it's entirely possible that Lambeth Lib Dems are far from typical, though there is evidence against that.

My experience is that there are unwritten rules in politics that separate "trying it on" from "being completely dishonest lying bastards". The only parties that regularly ignore those rules are the BNP and the Lib Dems. ALL the dirtiest tricks I have encountered in 35 years of political activity have involved the Lib Dems (with two exceptions, one Labour one Tory). Currently I'm trying to deal with an attempted Lib Dem takeover of a tenants organisation in a marginal ward. This has already involved vandalism, threats of violence, false accusations published in a newspaper, and a police investigation. In the past I've encountered Lib Dem councillors failing to do casework and then claiming the credit when somebody else did it. Lib Dem controlled organisations refusing to cooperate with any organisation they see as not politically in line with them. And Lib Dem canvassers stirring up racism in an attempt to win votes.

Sadly some Lib Dem activists seem to be genuinely nice people who are attracted to a party with a strong policy on civil rights. If such people managed to retake their party from the slimeballs who currently run most of its activities then I can see them being a major force in British politics. Until that happens they will continue to create as much opposition as they create support, and their support will be fickle and the opposition to them will be committed.