When will the Lib Dems sweep to power?

[elbows]

Lib Dems engaging in dirty tricks does seem to be a complaint I hear against them, often from Labour & Tory politicians on Question Time.

Ive no experience of it myself, but I would not be at all surprised if it were true. There is no reason for me to trust them. And as I already alluded to, if they say things that sound a lot better than Labour or Tories, its only because they are an opposition party with no real chance of taking power, hence they are free to say good things because they will seldom be tested.

 

[frogwoman]

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.

Interesting post. Im curious now! What capacity were you involved with this stuff in?

 

[frogwoman]

LOL at the poll results btw

 

[Shevek]

my partner is a commited Lib Dem. He is a genuine honest person and I think he would be upset to hear his party being pulled apart like this. I must ask him what his reasons for joining the lib dems. He does have good reasons and I think there are some very committed genuine people within the party.

 

[belboid]

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).

this was a 'policy' the grassroots lib-dems, gathered around one tony greaves (who was a councillor local to me at the time) explicitly developed and the bnp explicitly ripped off. most of the time it wasn't really nasty or threatening, but it was based on last minute scare mongering which no one had time to respond to. i recall them leading a whispering campaign that one labour candidate was dodgy as fuck cos his brother (guess who ) was supposedly an IRA supporter. And that was one of their nice campaigns

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Lib Dems engaging in dirty tricks does seem to be a complaint I hear against them, often from Labour & Tory politicians on Question Time.

Ive no experience of it myself, but I would not be at all surprised if it were true. There is no reason for me to trust them. And as I already alluded to, if they say things that sound a lot better than Labour or Tories, its only because they are an opposition party with no real chance of taking power, hence they are free to say good things because they will seldom be tested.

The thing is, people look at their frontbench and as I've said several times, yes of course at that level they're nicer than the other two.

But locally, they can be really unscrupulous bastards and to my mind are like that more than the others.

 

[Shevek]

to my mind are like that more than the others.

Come on

 

[ericjarvis]

In response to frogwoman. Unfortunately I never really learned to say "no" fast enough. So, for my sins, I've been involved in politics since I was at school.

I've encountered problems with Lib Dem dirty tricks as a Labour organiser, agent and council candidate, and as a tenants association chair and as vice chair of a tenants management organisation. Even before then I had a run in with the Liberal Party before the SDP was founded, when they attempted to take over the student union by controlling the elections committee then making false allegations about several candidates for posts whilst the election committee banned any discussion beyond the initial accusation in any of the student media. The "mastermind" behind that went on to a career as a Liberal and then Lib Dem organiser.

In response to Shevek. I know many excellent people who are active in almost all political parties (if anyone has ever encountered a decent person who is BNP member then as far as I know it's a first). However the general membership doesn't reflect the core organisers necessarily. Actually most Tory organisers are pretty decent people (apart from being fundamentally wrong about politics) whereas less committed party members tend to seem to me to be mostly people I'd prefer to avoid. It's the other way round with Labour, the Green Party, and the Lib Dems. It's just more extreme in the case of the Lib Dems.

 

[Azrael]

But I think that having civil libertarianism as your central philosophy is increasingly important, even if there are some compromises made in policy.

Any party that supports more than 24 hours without charge doesn't know a thing about civil libertarianism. It accepts the logic underpinning authoritarianism and is quibbling about details. (I suppose I could stretch to 48 hours, but that's pushing a point.) There's a difference between sensible compromise and ditching your principles. Locking people up for two weeks without charge is the latter.

And I'm not sure either that civil libertarianism is at the heart of the Lib Dem's agenda.

 

[Azrael]

Just to elaborate on the above, under common law, the police used to be obliged to get a suspect before a magistrate as soon as was practical. The purpose of brief detention was to keep a prisoner secure until a Justice could be found. This is an unavoidable necessity, and very, very different to periods of "investigative detention" long allowed by Continental civil law.

However indisposed your bench might be, it doesn't take two weeks to find a magistrate. That the Lib Dems support this attack on the presumption of innocence shows they either fail to understand the issue, or lack the courage and ability to make the case for liberty. Either way, they can't be relied on.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Come on

No, seriously. Perhaps because local level is much more important to them, that's where they tend to show their lack of principle.

 

[Quartz]

Ironically, one of the big problems I have with the Lib Dems is PR. PR removes the link between the elected and the electors. It also encourages party hackery rather than individualism.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Ironically, one of the big problems I have with the Lib Dems is PR. PR removes the link between the elected and the electors. It also encourages party hackery rather than individualism.

This has got to be a joke, right?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Why?

I mean it partly depends on the system, but I live in a county using a party list system and it's much more about party hackery than a system where you can vote for or against an individual.

 

[Wolveryeti]

Is it really worse than the hackery involved in say, determining who gets to stand for the safe seats in the current system?

A much bigger concern for me is the disenfranchisement of vast swathes of the population. Who cares about the 'connection' between electors and elected when even if your party wins, your local MP is really just a glorified messenger boy sending letters to a leadership that doesn't give a fuck unless you happen to be from Middle England.

 

[kabbes]

My MP means absolutely fuck all to me. He's a Tory bastard that no more represents my views than a goat does. I certainly didn't vote for him. I'd feel much more represented by knowing that my vote had at least counted towards a representative I actually agreed with on anything ever.

 

[Brainaddict]

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.

Indeed. They don't have an idea between them. It's politics without politics. The end of history dontcha know. Or nearly. I hope the end is a big brick wall and they break their faces on it.

 

[Quartz]

My MP means absolutely fuck all to me. He's a Tory bastard that no more represents my views than a goat does. I certainly didn't vote for him.

But he is your MP. He is beholden to you, his constituents, for your votes. He needs to try and earn your votes. Obviously in your personal case, it's not on, but other people have different political views. And the personal aspect means that there's no such thing as a safe seat. A scandal will bring down the safest of seats. And who knows, you might decide that despite his views, he's the best person to represent your interests at Westminster. For example, would you prefer an honest Tory bastard over a corrupt Labour apparatchik? For instance, I'd prefer John Major over Keith Vaz, but I'd prefer Tony Benn over John Major.

 

[elbows]

Come on

On a human level its fair enough for you to defend them a little because they mean a lot to your boyfriend, but that doesnt alter the wider reality.

There are less seats that are potentially within reach of the Lib Dems under the current first past the post system, hence it is understandable if they try to win those seats 'by any means necessary'.

For a nice old cynical view of how party machinery operates, I recommend the TV drama 'vote, vote, vote for Nigel barton' by Dennis Potter - The cynical party agents asides to the camera are good. I only want me leg!

 

[Azrael]

First-past-the-post provides workable majorities. In addition to list systems and hackery, PR gives us perpetual coalitions, and politics becomes even more of a club for elites who have similar views.

PR is idealism over realism, from people who think democracy is an end in itself, rather than a means to get as fair and as representative a government as possible.

 

[Wolveryeti]

First-past-the-post provides workable majorities. In addition to list systems and hackery, PR gives us perpetual coalitions, and politics becomes even more of a club for elites who have similar views.

The divisions commonly observable in continental PR systems should not be seen as failure, but rather of the fact that some issues are genuinely controversial, and that in such circumstances, there is no legitimacy for the government to impose their will. The train of legislature should not be ridden roughshod over all objections purely in the name of getting things done.

Why do you think a 'workable majority' is such a commendable achievement if it is arrived at by methods which are so obviously detrimental to democracy?
The carrot and stick system we have now (ministerial positions for the yes-men, exile for the rebels) encourages meaningless prioritisation of 'party loyalty' versus attention to the issues at hand. It's a fucking shambles.

PR is idealism over realism, from people who think democracy is an end in itself, rather than a means to get as fair and as representative a government as possible.

Uhhh. Yeah. Labour got 36% of the vote in the last election but they have 55% of seats in parliament. Really representative.

You really chat a lot of shit, don't you?

 

[Azrael]

You really chat a lot of shit, don't you?

Thanks for saving me the trouble of replying.

 

[Wolveryeti]

A scandal will bring down the safest of seats.

What a resounding endorsement of the political system.

Doesn't matter what your party does, or what your personal beliefs are. Just make sure you don't fuck the secretary and you're golden.

 

[ericjarvis]

I think the whole to PR or not to PR debate is a side issue. What has really happened is that we, the public, and the political establishment have separated almost entirely. The vast majority of people have no involvement in politics or with politicians except through the media. The vast majority of politicians have little direct contact with the public except through the media or through individual casework. Neither side really has a clue about what's happening the other side of the divide.

Unless we can change things so that politics is about what happens on Planet Earth rather than about some fantasy world that only exists in newspaper columns or TV studios, then it really doesn't matter what system we use to elect them... it will favour shallow ruthless lying bastards who care more about how their hair looks than about their constituents.

 

[Azrael]

I think the whole to PR or not to PR debate is a side issue. What has really happened is that we, the public, and the political establishment have separated almost entirely.

True, but if PR perpetuates and worsens this situation, it's relevant. Its endless coalitions curtail adversarial politics and makes politicians feel like they're in a big club. A closed system where everyone compromises. A realistic prospect of power for even the smallest parties can drive out other concerns. Whatever the number of seats say, politics becomes less representative. There's irony.

And what for? Some abstract imperative that views democracy as an end in itself. The majority is everything. How does it help us if bad laws are made by a majority? We still have bad laws.

Democracy is a means to the end of representative government. A system that inflates majorities recognises that statistical purity is not automatically representative.

 

[durruti02]

was just looking again at these by elections this week ( copied from BNP thread) .. Lib Dems did extremely well .. is this just chnace or has there been a pattern here?


Leeds MBC
Temple Newsam Ward
Thursday 2nd April 2009
David SCHOFIELD (Conservatives) 1785
Tom REDMOND (BNP) 1502
Danny ADILYPOUR (Labour) 1476
Ian DOWLING (Lib Dems) 1468
Christopher FOREN (Greens) 137
BNP Percentage: 23.6%
May 2008: Con 2386, Lab 2083, BNP 1560, LibDem 521, Ind 487.

Calderdale MBC
Skircoat Ward
Thursday 2nd April 2009
John HARDY (Conservative)1277
Pauline NASH (Liberal Democrat) 1259
Anne COLLINS (Labour) 274
Paul BRANNIGAN (Independent) 238
Chris GODRIDGE (British National Party) 235
Phillip CROSSLEY (Independent) 229
Viv SMITH (Green Party) 92
BNP Percentage: 6.5%
May 2008: Con 2132, LibDem 1305, Lab 308, Green 202.

Arun DC
Felpham West
Thursday 2nd April 2009
Gill MADELEY (Conservative) 630
Martin LURY (Liberal Democrat) 269
Mike WITCHELL (BNP) 167
John PHILLIPS (UKIP) 89
Michelle WHITE (Labour) 56
BNP Percentage: 13.7%
May 2007% Con 810 / 726, Ind 585, UKIP 333, LibDem 330.

Redcar/Cleveland UA
Dormanstown Ward
Thursday 2nd April 2009
Ken LUCAS (Lib-Dem) 809
Marian FAIRLEY (Lab) 667
Lynn PAYNE (BNP) 305
Brian HUGHES-MUNDY (Con) 125
BNP Percentage: 16.0%
May 2007: Lab 858 / 805 / 758, LibDem 414 / 412 / 386, Con 374.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Is it really worse than the hackery involved in say, determining who gets to stand for the safe seats in the current system?

Yes, it is: not vastly, but it's worse. Because you still get the same sort of hackery, for who'll be highest up the list: but you get it all the time and everywhere.

I'm not saying there's no virtue in PR or even necessarily that it's not better than FPTP. There's merits and demerits in both. But I think it would be better it would be better if people didn't assume:

a) that PR is more democratic (it isn't, necessarily);
b) that it's fairer (it isn't, necessarily);
c) that it's less corrupt (it certainly isn't);
d) that it would benefit the Lib Dems (it very likely wouldn't).

 

[Wolveryeti]

Democracy is a means to the end of representative government. A system that inflates majorities recognises that statistical purity is not automatically representative.

What is this garbage doublethink?

Every dictator has had a 'workable majority' too.

 

[Wolveryeti]

it would be better if people didn't assume:

a) that PR is more democratic (it isn't, necessarily);
c) that it's less corrupt (it certainly isn't);

I wish you'd elaborate on these two, because I find them pretty controversial. I think equal franchise is pretty fundamental to how democratic a system is, and I can't spy what it is about PR that necessarily makes it more corrupt.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Well, it's not necessarily more democratic if the smallest of the three parties were to get to be kingmaker all the time - less democracy than tail-wagging-dog. But nor is it more democratic in the important sense of being more accessible to the people.

As for the corruption - well, as I say, if you have a system which increases the degree to which candidates are dependent on their parties rather then the electorate, where you have no fundamental way of singling out and removing an individual, then you increase the corruptibility of those individuals and hence that system.