MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Halfway down this lot is a chart of stay out or rejoin polling
its now 34% stay out to 48% rejoin and there is a clear trend away from Brexit.
https://electionmaps.uk/polling
That's less graphically interesting than the Truss arrow of doom in the PM chart though.
And that's about 3pts away from where the polling was a year out from the referendum.
Point of note, the ConDem coalition was 2010. Papping on about tuition fees 13 years later is somewhat blinkered IMHO.
I genuinely don't understand this argument. Yes, they dropped the ball, but show me a political party who hasn't done so either through malice or ineptitude. People are still squealing about Blair and the Iraq War and that was twenty years ago now. Hey, remember when Thatcher stopped free milk in schools?
Mistakes have been made and yes, it'd be nice if they admitted it but, well, welcome to politics. Has Germany done apologising for WWII yet? We can't change the past, we can affect the future.
I'm so incredibly bored now of this retrospective millstone that we insist on dragging around. The 2016 referendum, Milliband eating a sandwich, Cameron allegedly shagging a pig (hopefully unrelated to the aforementioned sandwich but hey, public schools so who knows), Boris shagging everything, Short Cummings' getting in a car to test his eyes, it goes on and on and on and... Have we not worked out yet that with a handful of notable exceptions they're all just nest-feathering shitbags? What's the actual point of obsessing over something that happened one, two, three, four decades ago?
If we don't want history to repeat itself, we need to put away grudges and look forwards rather than backwards. What, if anything, are all these parties offering today?
What, if anything, are all these parties offering today?
Nothing to solve the UKs issues. thats the problem. Tories its a given but with labour we have Starmer with NO no no to EU and constitutional reform, We have Streeting wanting to privitise the NHS further, We have a promise of more austerity from Reeve.
Its hardly inspiring is it?
People are still squealing about Blair and the Iraq War and that was twenty years ago now.
200,000-1,100,000 million people died over those last 20 years, unindicted war criminals get paid millions by crypto investors, and Islamic State groups still roam the country...but otoh some IT manager from Swindon wearing velcro-secured cycling sandals is "bored" of the "squealing".
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
Mistakes have been made and yes, it’d be nice if they admitted it but, well, welcome to politics. Has Germany done apologising for WWII yet?
If people won't vote for the Lib-Dems because they broke an election promise, who the **** do you actually vote for?
There isn't a party that hasn't broken a commitment or manifesto pledge.
Its not so much the broken promise with the lib Dems for me - its the unapologetic enabling of a cruel tory government and the refusal to censure Carmicheal the liar that did it for me
I genuinely don’t understand this argument.
Becasue politics is a messy business of compromise and fudge, and becasue some people like to think in absolutes, that hurts their heads. This way you can pick on some abstract thing that some political party did as a reason to "hate" them
The lib dems USP was honesty and integrity. When they lost that as the coaltion and Carmicheal did then they have nothing left.
My dad was a lib dem activist for decades and his seat is a snp / lib dem marginal. He is unlikely to vote lib dem again he says.
If we don’t want history to repeat itself, we need to put away grudges and look forwards rather than backwards
If you don't want history to repeat itself you have to learn from it.
The Lib-Dems have refused to learn from history and still want to pretend they are a 'proper' political party. See 'Jo Swinson for PM' for the most recent example (I still struggle to even think of that without chuckling). Anyone who votes Lib-Dem in their current form is also refusing to learn from history.
Instead of pretending to be a 'proper' party they should take a leaf out of UKIP's book and become an irritant to the main parties.
Instead of being a 'proper' party they become a lunatic fringe group with their single burning issue being constitutional reform (with some rejoin the EU thrown in when they get bored).
People don't like to admit it but UKIP is the most successful UK party of the last 50 years in terms of achieving it's goals. If you don't want to learn from your enemies then good luck trying the same unsuccessful tactics over and over again.
The difference is that if they achieved their goal then the Lib-Dems would actually become relevant in UK politics.
How could they? They had no idea ahead of time who they’d be negotiating with or how strong they’d be.
Then they shouldn't have promised in the manifesto. And make no mistake, it was a promise.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/scotland_99/manifestos/libdems/educ.htm
We will:
Widen access to further and higher education.
Attack student poverty. We will quadruple, to around £14million per year, the access funds administered by universities and colleges to tackle financial hardship. Funding would be targeted, allowing maintenance of up to £2,000 a year to be paid to mature students and those in greatest financial difficulty.
Abolish tuition fees for all Scottish students at UK universities.
Abolish 4th year tuition fees for English, Welsh and Northern Irish students at Scottish universities.
We will work at Westminster for the abolition of university tuition fees across the UK.
We oppose the concept of top-up fees for undergraduates in higher and further education.
Support the progress of the University of the Highlands and Islands towards full university status.Support high quality university research. We will provide the strongest possible support for the research base in our universities to maintain their competitive position at UK and international levels.
Reform and improve the financial support of colleges of further education. We will enhance the key role played by colleges in education and training, particularly for technological and industrial careers. We will work to improve their funding and create, along with them, a modern, prestigious apprenticeship system combining on-the-job training and study.
Use the colleges and the voluntary sector to spearhead the provision of quality adult and youth education and training. We will encourage the development of a regional strategic frame-work for further education across Scotland, the use of more New Deal funding in this field and the streamlining of quality audit arrangements.
Support disadvantaged students at college and university. We will allocate additional resources to fund the institutions which recruit such students, in recognition of the added costs of recruiting and supporting disadvantaged students with few qualifications.
Support an independent UK Pay Review Body for higher and further education. We will aim to implement its awards in full without staging. We will require a vote of the Scottish Parliament to overturn such recommendations.
Do you see the difference in wording between tuition fees and every other part of this section of the manifesto? There are ways of writing manifestos for potential junior members of government. You have red lines and you are unambiguous in your manifesto. Then you have 'nice to haves' which are worded in such a way to give yourself wiggle room in negotiations.
They left themselves no wiggle room. The didn't say, 'We oppose tuition fees' or 'We support reform of tuition fees', the only absolute in the education section was that they would abolish tuition fees.
They told us on campuses and in debates that it was a red line and they got a lot of support through that. From students, from parents of students, and literally anyone who thought your parents bank account shouldn't be a factor in your education opportunities.
To then be told literally 24 hours after the vote count that we had been lied to was an absolute slap in the face but definitely a rude awakening to the world of Lib-Dem politics for bunch of naive first time voters.
Anyway, learn from history, don't learn from history, it's up to you. Just don't come complaining to me next time the Lib-Dems screw you over for a seat at the big boy table.
Becasue politics is a messy business of compromise and fudge, and becasue some people like to think in absolutes, that hurts their heads.
Yes of course. I guess it hurts to see how inferior everyone is to you.
Shame though your sneering is undermined by the minor detail the coalition is a masterclass in not actually compromising and fudging. Its a case of some incompetents being absolutely outplayed.
Although to be fair to them there is also the question of whether the libdem MPs did use the coalition to get rid of the fees (Clegg and several others were opposed to the policy but had to go with the party voted line).
Personally I havent seen enough evidence yet the Lib dems have moved away from the orange book idiots. If I want some clueless absolutists in the free market then I would vote for Truss.
200,000-1,100,000 million people died over those last 20 years, unindicted war criminals get paid millions by crypto investors, and Islamic State groups still roam the country…but otoh some IT manager from Swindon wearing velcro-secured cycling sandals is “bored” of the “squealing”.
I'm deeply offended that you think I'm a Southerner.
Point was, as I said, it was twenty years ago. If you think Tony Blair should be tried for war crimes then go for it. But for all their other failings, judging a party today over something their predecessors did two decades ago is foolish. It's a distraction. TJ said his dad is unlikely to vote for the LDs ever again; I understand that stance but again, it's daft. Parties change, people change, the only thing consistent in politics is the colour of the rosette.
It's (highly unlikely but) entirely possible that the next Tory leader might not be a public school throwback millionaire and instead be someone who actually has the country's best interests at heart. I'd vote for that.
Lib Dems have not changed back - Carmicheal is still in post and they have never apologised for the disaster of the coalition. So they still do not have their previous USP of being honest and trustworthy.
they have never apologised for the disaster of the coalition
Two things here.
1) Has any politician or political party ever apologised for anything ever? They probably have but I can't bring any examples to mind offhand.
2) Would it make a difference to you if they did?
Depends on the apology really.
If it was "sorry we upset you" then nah.
If it is sorry this happened and we have got these steps to stop it in future then more optimistic.
There are ways of writing manifestos for potential junior members of government. You have red lines and you are unambiguous in your manifesto. Then you have ‘nice to haves’ which are worded in such a way to give yourself wiggle room in negotiations.
I suppose it is possible to write a manifesto that spells out what things you would and wouldn't compromise on in coalition. But the Lib Dems didn't that year, and I don't remember ever having seen another one. They might exist - but fundamentally a manifesto is "if we were elected, then we would do this and have a mandate to do this".
Obviously none of us know what you were told in person. Maybe the Lib Dem activist went further than was in the manifesto. Quite possibly it was a bad compromise.
the only absolute in the education section was that they would abolish tuition fees.
That's not true. Right above it, it also says "We will quadruple, to around £14million per year, the access funds administered by universities and colleges to tackle financial hardship".
judging a party today over something their predecessors did two decades ago is foolish
Don't make me go Godwin...
I suppose it is possible to write a manifesto that spells out what things you would and wouldn’t compromise on in coalition.
It's not just possible, it's how it's done. Do you think these things get scrawled on the back of a fag packet and sent to the printers?
The exact wording is debated, revised, and finalised umpteen times with input from all over for months. The wording on the pledges is crucial with absolutes (like 'We will abolish...' ) seen as red lines and parts written in language that can be interpreted differently ('We support...', 'We oppose...', 'We will work towards...') seen as being optional nice-to-haves.
If you look at countries where all parties could conceivably make up part of the government it is crucial to know what they will absolutely not do and what they absolutely will do (what they absolutely will not do is generally seen as more important).
If you're used to FPTP then this probably seems strange, given that smaller parties will generally never get anywhere near government and the winning party normally has an absolute majority so has the votes to do anything on it's manifesto, or can just ignore the manifesto because everyone knows all politicians lie anyway and who the hell else are they going to vote for?
In functioning democracies, crossing your own red line results in a severe spanking in the next election and for many elections to come if the party doesn't acknowledge and fix their mistake.
I think all these, 'Guys, it was a long time ago, can't we just forget it and move on...' arguments are happening because most contributors on this thread have never actually lived in a functioning democracy.
That’s not true. Right above it, it also says “We will quadruple, to around £14million per year, the access funds administered by universities and colleges to tackle financial hardship”.
Right you are. And given it's directly above the other two, it's at least as firm a commitment as abolishing tuition fees was.
Did it happen, or was that also tossed on the bonfire of commitments?
I think we have irreconcilable understandings of what a manifesto is. I have always understood a manifesto to be the slate of actions the party would take if elected to government. You seem to be treating manifestos as a document containing a scaleable array of commitments depending on the exact phrasing and how strong the vote is and what kind of coalition deal can be struck.
The facts that the 1999 Scottish Lib Dem manifesto was the one of the first wave of manifestos under a PR regime, and that the manifesto simply doesn't contain any of those gradations speak for themselves.
If you’re used to FPTP then this probably seems strange...most contributors on this thread have never actually lived in a functioning democracy
An odd bit of snark. But if we are willy-waving, I've lived in a bunch of places, from an absolute monarchy to a psephologist's wet dream. Most relevantly, in 1999, I was voting in that exact election in Scotland...
Anyway, I sense we have gone past the extent of useful dialogue, so I will end it there. HAND.
and that the manifesto simply doesn’t contain any of those gradations speak for themselves.
It quite clearly does. I posted a link to the manifesto. I quoted the relevant parts. I made the specific parts I was referring to bold. I'm really not sure what else I can do if you are simply going to refuse to see what I am putting right in front of your eyes.
Are you saying the phrasing was irrelevant? They just picked random words to use based on artistic merit?
Anyway, I sense we have gone past the extent of useful dialogue, so I will end it there. HAND.
Congratulations on gracefully exiting the discussion without addressing the points and managing to do a bit of self-soothing for your ego at the same time.
I've always interpreted a manifesto as a plan for govt assuming elected as majority party, not a set of hopes and demands for joining a coalition. Obviously you hope to see some of it get there in the case of a coalition partner, but anyone expecting all of the "we will" to make it in there is pretty delusional. You might as well criticise Labour for not implementing their manifesto either after they lost!
I’ve always interpreted a manifesto as
I’ve always interpreted a manifesto as a sales pitch, a bit like a CV. Its one purpose is to gain votes. To expect any party to definitely, absolutely deliver on any of it is hopelessly naive IMHO. Might as well write it down the side of a bus.
I have no great love or loyalty for any particular political party, but specifically giving the LDs a kicking over one ****-up years ago is surely short-sighted. It's hardly like they're one bad egg amongst a sea of saints now, is it. The Tories have been systematically setting fire to the country for years, up to and including brexit and beyond, yet some folk are still clamouring "yes but tuition fees."
I’ve always interpreted a manifesto as a plan for govt assuming elected as majority party, not a set of hopes and demands for joining a coalition. Obviously you hope to see some of it get there in the case of a coalition partner, but anyone expecting all of the “we will” to make it in there is pretty delusional. You might as well criticise Labour for not implementing their manifesto either after they lost!
Like I said, that's an attitude that comes from being so used to FPTP that small parties actually having to be prepared to put their manifesto policies into practice is a completely alien concept.
In functioning democracies, all the small parties have to be prepared to go into government. The manifesto is not just a collection of random words that don't have to have any basis in reality.
In addition to the massive democratic deficit caused by FPTP, it absolves all the parties of any responsibility for their manifestos. Small parties are never going to get in power (or almost never) so they can say whatever they like and the two major parties only have to appeal to a few hundred thousand swing voters so they can put whatever the hell they like in the manifesto. So long as they can keep a tiny minority of the population happy they really don't give a shit.
To expect any party to definitely, absolutely deliver on any of it is hopelessly naive IMHO.
The crucial part of that sentence you missed is, 'in a FPTP electoral system'.
In functioning democracies the wording of manifestos is crucial because if they go back on one of their red lines they will be severely punished at the next election and quite possibly for several elections after.
As they should be.
Sure.
But we don't. I don't disagree with anything in your previous post.
So expecting it is a fool's errand until we have actual change in the system. And that will never happen because it requires those in power to make decisions which will likely mean that they won't be in power any more.
But we don’t
Well, Scotland does and at least part of what we are talking about here is what happened in Scotland.
But the point is we seem to be at some weird point in history where coalitions/minority governments are more likely, for some reason (or we've just had two in the last 10 years by pure chance).
We saw one very successful example of a junior partner (not in terms of outcome, in terms of impact) and one absolute disaster (both in terms of outcome and impact).
The DUP showed us that if you have a goal and you are prepared to burn everything to the ground to achieve that goal, you will be successful.
The Lib-Dems have shown no signs of having learned this lesson and if they stumble into another coalition they will be equally ineffective. That is even with two major issues that they could commit themselves to entirely (electoral reform and the EU).
Until they figure this out they will be an absolute waste of space.
A 2017 study in the American Journal of Political Science found that for 12 countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States) found that political parties fulfill their promises to voters to a considerable extent:
Parties that hold executive office after elections generally fulfill substantial percentages, sometimes very high percentages, of their election pledges, whereas parties that do not hold executive office generally find that lower percentages of their pledges are fulfilled. The fulfillment of pledges by governing executive parties varies across governments in ways that reflect power-sharing arrangements. The main power-sharing arrangement that impacts pledge fulfillment distinguishes between single-party governments and coalitions, not between governments with and without legislative majorities. We found the highest percentages of pledge fulfillment for governing parties in the United Kingdom, Sweden, Portugal, Spain, and Canada, most of which governed in single-party executives. We found lower percentages for governing parties in Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Bulgaria, Ireland, and Italy, most of which governed in coalitions. Pledge fulfillment by U.S. presidential parties lies at the higher end of coalition governments, which suggests that U.S. presidents are more constrained than governing parties in single-party parliamentary systems, but less constrained than most governing parties in multiparty coalitions.
Well, Scotland does and at least part of what we are talking about here is what happened in Scotland.
I'll take your word on that. I don't live in Scotland and know little about its politics.
The Lib-Dems have shown no signs of having learned this lesson
Have they shown signs that they haven't? Indeed, have they shown signs of anything? I can't remember the last time anyone mentioned them outside of this website, I couldn't tell you who their current leader is even. Rygel gets more publicity than the LDs.
Have they shown signs that they haven’t?
Exhibit A:
More recently, I don't know. They certainly haven't been setting fire to things in the name of electoral reform or rejoining the EU so I can only assume they still think they are a proper big boy party.
There is also the possibility that some Tory councillors are actually good at their jobs.
This is a good point, much as it pains me to admit. There was a local issue here which the council had sat on for months. I got a councillor involved (more by chance than anything, he saw my rant on Facebook), it was fixed inside of about three days.
It did rather leave me wondering why he was a Tory boy.
Labour should have wiped the board if they’d not spent the last 6 or 7 years messing around with Corbyn and now Starmer, two “leaders” who seem as spineless as the other. When Brexit was happening, who was there to stick the oar in and every opportunity
I wonder how much of this we can blame on media coverage. It's hard to know what Labour is or isn't up to when 50% of political news airtime / Question Time / newsprint inches is handed over to Garage and his ilk.
the tories currently engaged in voter suppression & a concerted effort to shut down protests
& you reckon labour are authoritarian?!
See also, the Investigatory Powers Act and the Online Safety Bill.
"Corbyn and now Starmer, two “leaders” who seem as spineless as the other."
I think this is very unfair. Corbyn has for 40+ years taken principled stands on issues and maintained them even in the face of total opposition from his party, government, the media and society. He could have had a much easier, lucrative and powerful life in politics if he had been much more spineless.
Unfortunately, many of his principles were awful.
As I predicted - labours become right wing and brexiteers is giving plenty of room to out flank them
Lib Demand green gains in the councils show this - its loathing of the tories not love for labour. labour doing well in the "red wall" seats but much worse in those seats where lib dems and greens are seen as a real alternative and here is flynn using exactly the attack line I predicted
Stephen Flynn, the SNP leader at Westminster, said this shows Scots should vote SNP so Scotland can “pull the strings” of a minority UK government. In a statement he said:
It’s increasingly clear that the SNP can hold the balance of power after the next general election – putting Scotland in prime position to pull the strings of a minority UK government.
Voting SNP is the best way to beat the Tories in Scotland – and every vote for the SNP will be crucial to ensure Scotland wields real power and influence.
With the pro-Brexit Labour party lurching to the right, and becoming indistinguishable from the Tories, the SNP will make certain that real change happens.
The SNP would ensure the power to determine Scotland’s future is transferred to Edinburgh, that the cost of living crisis becomes the main priority of Westminster and that relations with Europe are rebuilt and renewed.
Starmers position may work insome areas but its clerly a huge vote loser in others
Hmmm, Oxford Politics Prof on PM said that the results in the swingy-leave seats indicates that labour are getting the message to them about right, and don't scare 'em still seems to be the right tactic as it stands.
She also said that it's not clear cut; that while there is a projected lead based on calcs (noting not all areas are voting so extrapolating can be difficult) that calc doesn't have SKS much different to Ed Milliband's labour prior to 2015 and we know how that turned out.
She also said that in the end it's the party that voters trust with the economy that wins. Given the debacle of the Truss days I'd hope that is obvious but in 12-18 months time if energy comes down, CoL pressures ease...... I'm starting to get scared again.
Anyway, I said I was fed up of circular arguments. Opinions are like aresholes, everyone has one and I don't want you waving yours in my face over and over, and I assume v/v.
(noting I have a very nice, sat-down-wiped one)
Lib Demand green gains in the councils show this
Isn't this just the tactical voting that everyone wants? Some of those Lib Dem gains and holds like Chichester, Chlemsford, and Cotswolds didn't have Labour candidates standing in them
Isn’t this just the tactical voting that everyone wants?
Yup, looks like voters are getting wise(r).
labour doing well in the “red wall” seats but much worse in those seats where lib dems and greens
So… where Labour can take seats of the Tories, their vote in local elections are up, and where LibDems can take seats of the Tories, their vote in local elections are up. I find this promising. And we might even get a second Green MP… fingers crossed.
Back to Brexit… none of these parties are standing on a platform of magically undoing it. Closer working relationship, and talk of Single Market (“when the time is right”… ie no time soon) is as close as it gets.
much different to Ed Milliband’s labour prior to 2015 and we know how that turned out
Completely different set of seats? Were London seats up for grabs in those local elections?
The crucial part of that sentence you missed is, ‘in a FPTP electoral system’.
In functioning democracies the wording of manifestos is crucial because if they go back on one of their red lines they will be severely punished at the next election and quite possibly for several elections after.
As they should be.
Well, Scotland does and at least part of what we are talking about here is what happened in Scotland.
Do we? News to me, in that case I'm sure bus re-regulation is just around the corner as well as that national travel card, national energy provider and whatever else has been promised to us over the years and didn't materialise.
Do we? News to me, in that case I’m sure bus re-regulation is just around the corner as well as that national travel card, national energy provider and whatever else has been promised to us over the years and didn’t materialise.
Don't think I said Scotland has a functioning democracy. For one thing, it's missing some key responsibilities.
It's definitely got the basis of a functioning democracy with it's own parliament that uses the D'Hondt system. It just needs to have everything devolved to it so that the distorting power of the independence question means that it can start to function as it was meant to, with coalition governments and frustrating compromises for everyone.
At the moment it suffers from the same problem FPTP does with the, 'Well, who else are they going to vote for?' problem. Post independence that is no longer an issue.
The same parliament that you've been giving the Lib Dems a kicking for the last however many pages for not fully delivering a manifesto commitment? That parliament yeah?
So why is it okay for SNP to continually promise the earth, go back on it and get re-elected but the Libs aren't to be trusted over things that happened 13 and 26 years ago?
If you can't be consistent then your argument is worth nothing.
If you can’t be consistent then your argument is worth nothing.
Almost a nice gotcha, but it completely misses my point which is that the Lib-Dems stand for nothing. They are for getting into government and against not getting into government. Therefore, if you vote for them on the basis of something they promise they are going to do, prepare to be disappointed.
The SNP have a central tenet which is independence. If they ever got to the point of being able to deliver independence but then turned around and said, 'Actually, the Union seems OK so we're just going to stick with that' then I would put them in the same box as the Lib-Dems and never consider voting for them again.
As far as how truthful the SNP were, you'd have to look at each broken commitment and then check it against their manifesto. Were they absolute red-line commitment statements or did they leave themselves wiggle room?
It could be they flat out lied purely to maximise their seat count but I generally assume independence is the red-line commitment and everything else is a nice-to-have.
In case you never noticed they weren't just elected for the sake of independence, they have a country to run.
Your argument, as I said, is completely inconsistent.
Late back to this but:
Completely different set of seats? Were London seats up for grabs in those local elections?
AIUI it's a sophisticated algorithm that takes info on the seats that were actually contested, etc, and extrapolates that into an estimate of what the GE result would be. So it shouldn't matter what seats are actually feeding the machine, it normalises for that. Yeh, maybe.
On that basis, that's where they said Labour are similarly positioned compared to Ed Milliband's Labour at that time (was that the threat of the coalition of chaos? Thank goodness we had stability instead!)
I'm not sure whether it is that possible to use the old algorithms, because I think we have definitely seen tactical voting to get Tories out this time rather than true voter allegiance. I did, and will do in a GE as well.
In case you never noticed they weren’t just elected for the sake of independence, they have a country to run.
Your argument, as I said, is completely inconsistent.
You forgot to add, 'imo'.
Like I said, if you've got the inclination to definitively prove me wrong, go back through their manifestos and check the wording on each of the pledges and compare it against their actions in government and then come back and post your proof. As I did with the Lib-Dems.
Saying that, while it may be justification for some people to refuse to ever vote SNP again, they haven't personally burned me as the Lib-Dems did so even if you definitely prove that the SNP have gone back on one of their red line pledges it may not change my view.
The reason for that is that until they betray their central tenet (independence) it's difficult to see that they have really crossed one of their own red lines. But there might be something out there that I feel strongly enough about to change my mind.
The Lib-Dems have no central tenet beyond getting government jobs.
Labour and the Tories have a chance of an absolute majority or at least being the biggest party. They can afford to not have a driving cause (even if they are supposed to have one). The Greens have the environment. Say what you like about Reform/UKIP/BNP, they have a central tenet, even if it is abhorrent.
The Lib-Dems are just a vacuum of principles and until they find something to define themselves they should just sit down and put their heads on the desk.
In case you never noticed they weren’t just elected for the sake of independence, they have a country to run.
They might have, but their #1 Manifesto commitment is independence.
I don't hear of Unionist friends/acquaintances supporting the SNP so I reckon we can pretty much assume that folk who vote for them either want independence or don't care either way. And with the Govt in Westminster 100% against independence plus I believe that if they thought they could get away with it they'd remove devolution, it's bloody difficult to 'run' the country when you've only a percentage of the 'levers'. It's like driving, but relying on someone else turning right, switching on the wipers and supplying the tyres (that you've paid for).
Someone’s got themselves a big fat Brexit Benefit…
https://twitter.com/carolvorders/status/1655194771655196672?s=21
they haven’t personally burned me as the Lib-Dems did so
I think this is probably 90% of your beef with them. Don't get me wrong, I'd be pissed too especially if I was in the 98-2000 cohort that got screwed on fees. But whilst they didn't deliver exactly what they said they would, if you look at it objectively, they still improved things for a lot of students over the years.
it’s bloody difficult to ‘run’ the country when you’ve only a percentage of the ‘levers’
Oh give over, it's only hard to get bus regulation over the line when your #1 and #2 donators were Brian Souter and Ann Gloag, don't kid yourself that it was anything more than that. They knew it was never going to happen but it was the hot topic of the day.
They constantly promise investment in public transport that either comes to nothing or is value engineered such that what's promised isn't what's delivered (EGIP was one example but I forget the exact details).
But as I say, people keep voting for them and they keep doing the same thing. At least the Libs can claim to have an excuse as it was done in the name of compromise.
I think this is probably 90% of your beef with them. Don’t get me wrong, I’d be pissed too especially if I was in the 98-2000 cohort that got screwed on fees. But whilst they didn’t deliver exactly what they said they would, if you look at it objectively, they still improved things for a lot of students over the years.
Sure, but it also made me analyse the Lib-Dems and exactly where they stood on the political spectrum. My own personal experience is one thing but the main problem is you can't vote for them based on something they say they are going to do. They have no central tenet and therefore they can and will sacrifice literally any of their manifesto commitments.
The only reason you can have to vote for them is either tactical if the most important thing is to keep the party you really hate out or if you just think they seem like a decent bunch of people, even if you can't hold them to anything.
They are pretty much alone in this because Labour and the Tories (and the SNP) are fighting to be the largest party. There is a strong, 'Who else are you going to vote for?' attitude and it works because, well, who else are you going to vote for?
The other small parties have a central tenet that they base their policies around, and you can be fairly sure that they won't do anything that goes against that. A vote for them shows you feel very strongly about a particular issue and if the main parties think they are shipping votes to single issue parties they will start moving in that direction.
I just really don't see what function the Lib-Dems fulfil.
Oh give over, it’s only hard to get bus regulation over the line when your #1 and #2 donators were Brian Souter and Ann Gloag, don’t kid yourself that it was anything more than that. They knew it was never going to happen but it was the hot topic of the day.
You'll have to remind us when bus regulation was a "hot topic" - and with who?
Which is fair and perhaps goes some of the way to explaining how they've lost so much of the vote share. Thing is, they probably still consider themselves a main party (when have they been anything but?) rather than a fringe party that needs a gimmick.
Which is fair and perhaps goes some of the way to explaining how they’ve lost so much of the vote share. Thing is, they probably still consider themselves a main party (when have they been anything but?) rather than a fringe party that needs a gimmick.
Yeah, I'm sure that's what they are thinking (and why Jo Swinson decided to lead with 'I can be PM' in her pitch). To me that just seems delusional though.
I wouldn't say something like electoral reform is a gimmick. I'd say if a party chose to focus on this one issue they would find a hardcore of support that would bleed votes from Labour (maybe even Tories but less so).
Once the D'Hondt system was implemented UK wide the Lib-Dems might actually be successful.
Like I said, the most successful party this century has been UKIP. And they achieved all their goals without ever winning a seat.
If the Lib-Dems got themselves a purpose even I might vote for them.
Like I said, the most successful party this century has been UKIP. And they achieved all their goals without ever winning a seat.
Just because you say it doesnt make it true. Without the existing support within a large part of the conservatives mps and the foreign owned right wing media UKIP wouldnt have got anywhere.
Back to Brexit...
some small shoots of positivity starting to grow??
To defend the Lib Dems they do believe in liberalism, which is different to either the increasingly authoritarian Tories, or the Labour Party that tried to introduce ID cards (cards themselves not so much ado a problem, big database linked to them OTOH) and is currently refusing to say it’ll repeal the Tories suppression of the right to protest.
Electoral reform, while it’s noble, doesn’t really grab people’s attention. And d’Hondt isn’t a voting system, it’s a way of allocating seats under proportional voting systems.
Yeah I'm fairly sure both the EU and much of the UK govt and opposition feel that rejoin is inevitable eventually, they are just playing it steady. The EU can both look like the good guys and look really important if we come back to them.
The article is not specific about the ties, but talks about future security, and foreign policy arrangements could be high on the list of new partnership talks after the EU leaders praised the leading role the UK has played in the Ukraine-Russia conflict.
A deal on science and satellite communications is already on the cards, with talks reopening recently on the UK’s participation in Horizon Europe, the EU’s €95.5bn (£83.3bn) science and research programme.
This is the kind of thing I was talking about re "moving closer".
Just because you say it doesnt make it true. Without the existing support within a large part of the conservatives mps and the foreign owned right wing media UKIP wouldnt have got anywhere.
I think you've missed the central point I'm trying to make. In a FPTP system the chances of a small party (one that isn't Labour or Tories) becoming the largest party is close to nil. Therefore what is the point in them?
The point is to bleed voters from the main parties and force them to adopt your policies to try to entice those voters back. The Tories were bleeding support to UKIP so those voters had to be appeased. Even after the vote the Tories were still so scared of losing votes they continued trying to out-UKIP UKIP until they were virtually indistinguishable.
Winning in political terms isn't like a football game where it's easy to look at the final MP tally and say 'We won' (unless your objective is simply to be on the winning side.
Instead, for non-political people, winning is about getting the outcome you want regardless of who delivers it. Or at least it should be. Too often people view it as a football match, hence so many people here saying the only important thing is to beat the Tories.
UKIP got exactly the outcome they wanted. How can that be seen as being anything but 100% successful.
To defend the Lib Dems they do believe in liberalism, which is different to either the increasingly authoritarian Tories, or the Labour Party that tried to introduce ID cards (cards themselves not so much ado a problem, big database linked to them OTOH) and is currently refusing to say it’ll repeal the Tories suppression of the right to protest.
Electoral reform, while it’s noble, doesn’t really grab people’s attention. And d’Hondt isn’t a voting system, it’s a way of allocating seats under proportional voting systems.
Their record in the two governments they've been involved in says they don't really believe in anything, other than getting government jobs. And there has been no indication that that has changed.
How many chances should they be given to prove they have no principles before we finally give up on them?
I think you’ve missed the central point I’m trying to make.
Nope. I just disagree with it.
The reason for the referendum (ignoring the other parties had offered but then backtracked on it) was due to internal infighting.
The tories and especially some of their MPs were already out ukipping ukip. Some transferred across but most stayed in the tory camp.
Nope. I just disagree with it.
So you reckon that had UKIP not existed the Tories still would have ended up where they are now?
I mean, neither one of us can prove it one way or the other but it seems obvious to me that had UKIP never existed the Tories wouldn't have had to drift as far to the right to chase their votes. You're the first person I've heard say that UKIP had nothing to do with the Tories drifting further and further right.
Yeah I’m fairly sure both the EU and much of the UK govt and opposition feel that rejoin is inevitable eventually
I'm not so sure the EU gives the slightest shit about the moaning, troublesome bastards in the UK. They'd probably rather spend their time stemming the flow of migrants from Africa, integrating the accession states in the Balkans, propping up Ukraine, or signing more trade deals with emerging markets than burn a million person-hours with us again.
I’m not so sure the EU gives the slightest shit about the moaning, troublesome bastards in the UK.
For us to get to that point we'd have had to come a very long way from where we are now so we we wouldn't be like the old UK at all. We'd be cap in hand for a start.
Looks like the Tories have released that a big chunk of the “EU laws” they boasted of ripping up were in fact not only agreed to by UK Conservative governments, but suggested or championed by them… and so can’t be torn up without undoing their own hard won political gains. Still more than a bit worried about the ones they still plan to do away with… the detail will be interesting (ie just which further rights and protections will we lose).
Long grass… is Brexit not “done” yet then?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-food-shortages-supermarkets-eu-b2328871.html
Brexit red tape risks winter of empty supermarket shelves, food chiefs warn
Exclusive: Fears of new disruption to fresh produce supply from EU when import controls hit in October
Oh, and is now “too soon” to have a proper investigation into how we got here?
https://twitter.com/sathnam/status/1656409894780633089?s=21
Just when I thought I couldn't despise tbe odious little turd any more
BBC News - Brexit: Rishi Sunak broke his word over EU laws, says Jacob Rees-Mogg
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65555608
Luckily Whitehall has been working, and someone finally listened and decided to protect the country (and themselves) from unexpected (supposedly) consequences of ill considered policy pledges
I don't believe even Ree-Smug believes this shite any more, if they ever did
This is all about the internal machinations of the Tory party and a pissing competition between the various gangs of loons and headbangers about which of the bald blokes is left in possession of the comb
If Moggs is against it then i'm all for it, he's been put into pasture after the Liz Truss debacle, he should be chased out of the country the amount of damage he and his cronies have done, and he still can't just shut up and go quietly, nobody is listening to him, having him be against you is probably a good thing for Sunak weirdly!
I just wish Brexit was worked out by now by actual adults, keep as much good as we can, try and make use of any potential benefits, with the Ukraine war just now, the whole EU landscape has changed as well, all the brexiteers hoping for us to go back to the good old days are going to be in for a shock i feel in the coming years.
Has anyone seen Alistair Campbell and TeeJ in the same room?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/may/11/labour-lib-dems-brexit-britain-economy-society
He is too right wing and not green enough 🙂
You should read his weekly column in The New European.
“We accept the result of the referendum. But the Brexit as delivered, far from working, is daily damaging the real interests and needs of the people of this country, in ways large and small, and as a matter of urgency its workings must be reviewed and where necessary, new arrangements negotiated and put in place.”
Hard not to agree with that.
Oh, and is now “too soon” to have a proper investigation into how we got here?
The big red bus thing is interesting, as although it was obviously intened to misslead and stoke anti-EU sentiment, the way the livery was worded, gramatically speaking was only a suggestion, not a promise or a commitment.
"let's fund the NHS instead" isn't a commitment to give the NHS an extra 350m a week, its more of a question/ suggestion.
Still more than a bit worried about the ones they still plan to do away with… the detail will be interesting (ie just which further rights and protections will we lose).
Hmm… I think I’m justified in being worried…
https://twitter.com/labourunionsuk/status/1656694114476343303?s=21
The big red bus thing is interesting, as although it was obviously intened to misslead and stoke anti-EU sentiment, the way the livery was worded, gramatically speaking was only a suggestion, not a promise or a commitment.
I'm pretty sure UK law protects against this. Even if it's factually correct it can still be withdrawn if it's deemed misleading.
I'm not sure why anyone should be surprised at workers rights being in the Tory firing line. It was literally pointed out all the time before the referendum (with the stuff about economic damage, supply chains and non-EU immigration). But, Project Fear and all that. 🤷♂️
I’m pretty sure UK law protects against this. Even if it’s factually correct it can still be withdrawn if it’s deemed misleading.
What law protects against what? How are you going to withdraw a bus that hasn't been seen in 7 years?
Who gives a **** about the ****ing bus?
Everyone with a modicum of sense knew it was bollocks.
Some Leavers believed it - I pity them.
Some Leavers knew it was bollocks, but wanted to have a tantrum - well, boo hoo.
It is seven years too late for this.
What are we going to do, in the here and now, to improve our situation? That is all that matters. Any improvement is going to be a part-reversal of Brexit - that is just logic. So someone in a position of influence needs to put their big boy pants on and tell it like it is.
Until then it is just piss in the wind.