The SNP (and other nationalist parties) claim that because of this Scotland is ‘different’ and the only solution is independence, when in fact the differences are very small.
The differences were small. They've been growing since the Blair years and now they are simply too big to ignore.
Either England changes (or rather the political system in the UK changes) and the main parties stop simply chasing the votes of a few hundred thousand swing voters or the only choice for Scotland is independence.
The electoral system is the sickness that has led to all the other issues.
Are the Lib-Dems even offering voting reform anymore?
because of this Scotland is ‘different’ and the only solution is independence, when in fact the differences are very small.
Examples of why this is wrong. the brexit vote. Not a single area of Scotland voted for brexit and overall it was 2:1 remain
Or another. the highest UKIP reached in the polls here was 7%. In england 20+ %
Politically there is a growing divergence. Tories have not been the largest party in Scotland since the 50s
Pro independence parties got just about a majority of the vote ( hard to be exact because of the constituency and list vote)
SNP did not get a majority on a minority of the vote. They are one short of a majority
Trying to justify independence on the back of local elections, to which Scotland and Wales were not involved
Yup, it is hard to believe that Scotland didn't even get a vote in last week's local elections, judging by the way this thread has gone.
Every political thread seems to get hijacked into discussing Scotland, despite the fact that Scotland's population is three and a half million smaller than London's!
Next week Northern Ireland holds their local elections, no doubt we will be discussing Scotland again on this thread when the results are announced.
I hate the Tories because of the damage they’re doing right now, not because they abolished free milk in schools in the 1970s.
You can clealry do both - I hate the Tories for what they are doing right now AND what they did in the last 12 years AND what they did in the 80s and 90's. I have hated the Tories since around 1979 when I was 11 (an early starter!)
Not sure if that was aimed at me
For the avoidance of doubt, it wasn't aimed at anyone. It's a common stance both on STW and elsewhere and I'd be hard pressed to attribute it to anyone individually.
I genuinely don't get it. I'm increasingly of the mind that it's an excuse to justify a preformed opinion. "I don't like [this] and here's my reason."
There's not a politician - hell, there's not a human - alive who hasn't screwed up at some point. Thatcher deeply regretted the milk thing, which was a decision she inherited as Education Secretary and took the fall for. The LDs will be forever tainted by tuition fees, one bad decision in the middle of hundreds well over a decade ago. "You can't trust the LDs because this is what they'll do..." based on the actions of people nowhere near parliament today. Arguing "I could never vote Labour because of the Iraq War" - how many of that cabinet are still in the Commons, how relevant is it? Hell, even if Blair were still in power - he simply ****ed up. It happens, and when you're in a position of power than **** ups can be catastrophic. If it was one of Labour's core policies to go to war with the Middle East then there might be a point.
What's the quote, a democracy which rejects change ceases to be a democracy? Something like that.
based on the actions of people nowhere near parliament today
This is why they shouldn't have chosen Davey as leader. He made useful steps for greening of energy, but he was part of that coalition team. If they'd picked someone fresh they'd have been bouncing back faster and stronger, IMHO.
When looking at these election results, it's worth remembering that in the seats where it's pretty much Tories vs LibDem, the LibDems always perform better when voters in these areas aren't in a "stop Labour" mindset because they see Labour as being closer to the centre. It doesn't make much sense, but it's what happens. Voters more likely to swap their vote to LibDem, or to not vote at all. A more radical Labour offering helps the Tories against the LibDems greatly.
I'm still wondering how much of the local elections was tactical voting, get the Tories out, send a message etc.
And how much was honestly related to major national issues like Brexit vs local stuff like potholes and libraries etc?
Yes they're obviously linked although Tory tactics over the last few years have been to defund Labour areas then have the local Labour council take the hit on it, the idea being that people would vote Tory to fix it.
That's obviously not worked very well...
There's been some talk in Active Travel areas that the various people standing solely on anti-LTN, anti-CAZ issues (almost all Tories) have been annihilated and that's a mandate to push ahead with more. That's a fair point but I'm still curious how much of the vote was just "they're Tories, vote them out" and how much was "ooh, we like Low Traffic Neighbourhoods, we'll vote for the people that want them, not the ones that want to rip them out".
With the lib dems there is also Carmichael the liar who had no action taken against him for his lies. Again when your USP is honesty and integrity and you lose that its hard to come back
Despite that the lib dems did well in the local elections. They tend to do well as a protest vote in local elections but still a good result for them gaining so many seats
Greens did really well. Huge % gain despite ( I think?) being well to the left of labour overall
This is why they shouldn’t have chosen Davey as leader. He made useful steps for greening of energy, but he was part of that coalition team. If they’d picked someone fresh they’d have been bouncing back faster and stronger, IMHO.
I'm sure it's with good reason, but I do wonder why parties don't rebrand more often. If the LDs or [insert party here] are tainted, why not reboot with a new name, logo, marketing brand etc? Corporates do it all the time.
Are the Liberals, the Democrats, the Greens and various other parties not broadly aligned? Why not merge to create a new, progressive party? United we stand.
There’s not a politician – hell, there’s not a human – alive who hasn’t screwed up at some point. Thatcher deeply regretted the milk thing, which was a decision she inherited as Education Secretary and took the fall for. The LDs will be forever tainted by tuition fees, one bad decision in the middle of hundreds well over a decade ago.
Yeah, but I've explained so many times now I've lost count. It's not as simple as that.
The Lib-Dems have given no indication that anything has changed. They have given no indication they won't do exactly the same thing as soon as they are given a whiff of power.
Of all the small parties they are the only ones who have no core principle (other than Change, remember them?).
Therefore, if you vote for the Lib-Dems you have literally no idea which policies are going to be tossed and which are going to be kept (if any).
If you vote SNP you know their core principle is independence. If you vote Green you know their core principle is the environment. IF you vote Reform you know their core principle is racism.
The Lib-Dems are alone in that they are never going to be the largest party, let alone have a majority, and they have no core principle to guide them.
But sure, keep telling me my issue with them is something that happened 25 years ago if it makes you feel better.
, even if Blair were still in power – he simply ****ed up.
Blair has been consistently unrepentant so I don't think he would agree with you.
I take the point in specific terms, e.g. the Iraq war is hardly Starmer's fault, but I wouldn't entirely dismiss history as a guide to future performance.
But are we prepared to swap what happened 10 years for what is happening right here and now?
Because that's the choice in front. I live in a marginal constituency, not knife edge but close enough that it could be turned. Labour, Green, Reform, Indie..... none stand a chance. It's Yellow or Blue.
The Lib-Dems have given no indication that anything has changed.
What sort of indication would you accept? They're hardly headline news on a daily basis, Garage gets more airtime and column inches.
They have given no indication they won’t do exactly the same thing as soon as they are given a whiff of power.
Have they given any indication that they will? (And, what "same thing" are you referring to?)
But sure, keep telling me my issue with them is something that happened 25 years ago if it makes you feel better.
Nothing to do with me "feeling better," I just don't understand the thought process.
but I wouldn’t entirely dismiss history as a guide to future performance.
There has to be recognition that Iraq and the lessons of that conflict has influenced foreign policy to a massive degree for both Labour and the Tories - See the Syria conflict vote in 2013 for instance
Blair has been consistently unrepentant so I don’t think he would agree with you.
I take the point in specific terms, e.g. the Iraq war is hardly Starmer’s fault, but I wouldn’t entirely dismiss history as a guide to future performance.
Fair on both points.
I suppose the million dollar question here (and to the previous caller also) is, is it a problem born of party policies or from individual decisions? Does Labour do [objectionable thing] and the LDs do [other objectionable thing] because that's simply what they do as a party, or has it just been a few bad decisions?
What sort of indication would you accept?
A statement saying, 'This is our red line and it is a condition of any coalition government we enter.'
Instead, they can't even be bothered being pro-EU anymore. Do they even still want electoral system reform? I have literally no idea what is important to them as a party.
Other than getting some nice government jobs, of course.
Have they given any indication that they will? (And, what “same thing” are you referring to?)
Abandoning their red lines as soon as they are offered a sniff of power.
Maybe that's the new strategy. Commit to absolutely nothing and then your supporters can't be disappointed when you don't do what you say.
I just don’t understand the thought process.
I've explained several times now why the Lib-Dems are in a unique position in UK politics and why this is a bad thing. What don't you understand, exactly?
For large chunks of the population, Brexit is no longer a top issue. Cost of living, NHS, education, immigration are regularly at the top of the issue links.
I'm confused, I thought brexit was supposed to solve all of those issues.
Cost of living - we can make our own stuff rather than import it, buy British!
NHS - fewer "health tourists" taking advantage.
Education - same, ERASMUS+ taking up our valuable university spaces that our good honest British students pay through the nose for.
Immigration - we can send them all back where they came from. Maybe in a small boat.
It's almost as though we were lied to, isn't it. Who could've known.
Well there's obviously two things going on here - one is party principles, the other is individual actions by leaders and members. The two are related but separate.
I mean clearly the Green party would never kick off a huge programme of oil and gas exploration; but what would they do if faced with a persistent terrorist campaign? That depends on the situation, the intelligence available and the person in charge at the time.
What sort of indication would you accept?
A statement saying, ‘This is our red line and it is a condition of any coalition government we enter.’
...
Have they given any indication that they will? (And, what “same thing” are you referring to?)
Abandoning their red lines as soon as they are offered a sniff of power.
Ah. A dichotomy. I see your issue.
I’ve explained several times now why the Lib-Dems are in a unique position in UK politics and why this is a bad thing. What don’t you understand, exactly?
Perhaps I haven't been paying attention.
What makes them unique?
Other than getting some nice government jobs, of course.
I keep saying this and keep being ignored - this isn't how the party works, and any coalition/C&S/whatever deal will need to be ratified by the membership.
A lot has been learned since 2010, and there's no way they're going to do a national deal with the Tories again, even if it would get past the membership, which it won't - local politics are often slightly idiosyncratic, but even then I'd be surprised if many local LD parties in England were in any way keen to do a deal with the Tories.
As to what they stand for, there's a helpful guide on the website https://www.libdems.org.uk/values
Edited for clarity
Lib dems are doing deals with tories on councils in Scotland
Perhaps I haven’t been paying attention.
What makes them unique?
I can't keep writing the same thing over and over again only for yet another person to come along and say the exact same thing as the previous person I just explained it to.
Can't you just read what I wrote half a page up? Or at the top of the page? Or on the last page? Or the page before that?
Lib dems are doing deals with tories on councils in Scotland
So were Labour, in Stockport among others. But I was talking about Westminster.
There are big differences between what happens in Scotland where the SNP significantly affect the dynamic, and what happens in England or Wales.
It shows its not a red line
I am sure that if the arithmetic was the same again they would do it.
They might propose it. But without the approval of the membership it won't happen. And the membership are often more centre-left than centre-right and won't ratify it.
Don't forget that last time round it took a bit of selling, if there had been other options that would have led to a stable government (and any proposed coalition involving both the SNP and Lab definitely isn't that) in the midst of the worst financial crisis in decades, then those would have been favoured. There weren't, and if a deal hadn't been struck, we'd have been back to the polls in six months and ended up with a majority Tory government.
There is no LD appetite for another Tory coalition, and a lot has been learned about how coalition deals need to be negotiated before doing a national deal with anyone else for that matter.
Lib dems are doing deals with tories on councils in Scotland
It's local elections. In every council that its no overall control; Tories, Labour and LD are doing deals to create functioning councils, so that they can provide services, it's literally their job Obviously some councils organise themselves and it works well enough, others have constant in-fighting,
I keep saying this and keep being ignored – this isn’t how the party works, and any coalition/C&S/whatever deal will need to be ratified by the membership.
A lot has been learned since 2010, and there’s no way they’re going to do a national deal with the Tories again, even if it would get past the membership, which it won’t – local politics are often slightly idiosyncratic, but even then I’d be surprised if many local LD parties in England were in any way keen to do a deal with the Tories.
As to what they stand for, there’s a helpful guide on the website https://www.libdems.org.uk/values
/blockquote>So let me make sure I understand this.
If I vote Lib-Dem, I'm not actually voting for any policies or any core values (although looking at your link, with the core principles of Liberty, Equality, Democracy, Community, Human Rights, Internationalism, and Environmentalism it could be argued I am, in fact, voting for all the principles).
What I am voting for, if I vote Lib-Dem, is for the 70,000 or so Lib-Dem members to decide what I have just voted for?
What makes them unique?
I can’t keep writing the same thing over and over again only for yet another person to come along and say the exact same thing as the previous person I just explained it to.
Can’t you just read what I wrote half a page up? Or at the top of the page? Or on the last page? Or the page before that?
Well, I've just gone back three pages and I can't see any reference to this uniqueness you say you've explained.
It’s local elections. In every council that its no overall control; Tories, Labour and LD are doing deals to create functioning councils, so that they can provide services, it’s literally their job
+1
If only this is how national government worked.
Well, I’ve just gone back three pages and I can’t see any reference to this uniqueness you say you’ve explained.
Labour and and the Tories used to have core principles but are now both Brexit suicide cults. Doesn't matter though cause one of them is going to be the biggest party and probably have a majority so they can do what is in their manifesto (or not, who else are you going to vote for?).
Greens, SNP, Plaid Cymru, Reform, UKIP, Sinn Fein, DUP all have a core identity. If you vote for them you know what their focus is going to be if they end up in a coalition or they start stealing enough votes from either Labour or Tories.
The Lib-Dems have no core identity. If they end up in a coalition you have no idea which policies are going to be dropped. They have no cause. They are unique and not in a good way.
It used to be the Tories were for making the rich as rich as possible and Labour were for stopping kids getting stuffed up chimneys. The Lib-Dems were for people who couldn't decide if either one was a bad thing. And that was OK.
Now, however, the Tories are a neo-liberal Brexit suicide cult. Labour are also a neo-liberal Brexit suicide cult but apparently a more competent version.
And since Davey has started making eyes at Starmer, it seems the Lib-Dems have given up on the EU and decided to become yet another neo-liberal Brexit suicide cult.
The only difference is they aren't going to be the biggest one.
If only this is how national government worked.
Well it is invariably through necessity rather than choice. And it is exactly how the national government worked 10 years ago - the Tories and LibDems did a deal with each other. But I wouldn't describe it as a roaring success.
I totally agree with Nick's point though. If no party has overall control some sort of arrangement has to be reached - local councils can't call snap elections.
As well as wining a major in Mid Suffolk I believe that the Green Party is also the largest party in two other councils. I can't remember which ones but it will be interesting to see if they do a deal with another party or decide to remain in opposition.
OK.
What do you mean by "core identity"? The also-rans you listed are pretty much all single-policy parties. The LDs are "unique" because they're middle-of-the-road rather than their raison d'etre being screaming about one issue?
I don't really have any skin in this game beyond wanting to yeet the incumbents. The LDs strike me as mediocre. But perhaps mediocre is exactly what we need right now rather than fuel for headline-grabbing clickbait.
What do you mean by “core identity”?
SNP and Plaid Cymru: Independence
Greens: Environment
UKIP and Reform: Racism
Sinn Fein and the DUP: NI stuff
The LDs are “unique” because they’re middle-of-the-road rather than their raison d’etre being screaming about one issue?
Like I said, that was fine when the Tories were for the rich and Labour were for the workers. There was an opening for people who couldn't make their mind up. Middle of the road, as you said.
What is middle of the road now?
Since Blair both have been middle of the road. Well, actually, both have been on the right side of the road but in the same lane.
Even now, Labours pitch is 'more of the same policies but we'll be good at it.' Do the Lib-Dems even have a pitch?
There has to be recognition that Iraq and the lessons of that conflict has influenced foreign policy to a massive degree for both Labour and the Tories – See the Syria conflict vote in 2013 for instance
It cuts both ways of course. History makes me confident that the lib dems would not form a coalition with the tories, for example.
Errm
Edinburgh city council the snp were just short of a majority. We have a lib dem tory labour coalition. Two labour members got the whip withdrawn for refusing to work with tories. It stinks
SNP and Plaid Cymru: Independence
Greens: Environment
UKIP and Reform: Racism
Sinn Fein and the DUP: NI stuff
So exactly as I said, "The also-rans you listed are pretty much all single-policy parties."
Could you name a second policy those parties have? I couldn't.
that was fine when the Tories were for the rich and Labour were for the workers.
And when was that, the 1970s? The 1920s?
What is middle of the road now?
I would assume the lib Dems, who by your own definition don't have a polarising core.
It might stink but it's the nature of coalition. Unless the SNP have an outright majority, then they have to find other people willing to work with them, and I dare say the unionist-nationalist divide is at least as strong as the left-right divide in England. If they can't and a coalition, even an uneasy one, can be formed and has a majority, that's what you get.
The Tories have moved so far to the right that there is no realistic coalition partner for them at Westminster.
Do the Lib-Dems even have a pitch?
Closer ties to Europe with the eventual aim of rejoining (bearing in mind there's a difference between having a commitment to something and campaigning on it when most of the public just want Brexit to go away)?
Electoral reform so people's vote actually counts for something?
Proper devolution so local areas have actual power vs. the centralising tendency of the other main parties?
Repeal of the more authoritarian law e.g. the abhorrent Public Order Act 2023 which Lab have said they'll keep?
What is middle of the road now?
Genghis Khan on a good day?
It might stink but it’s the nature of coalition.
It doesn't stick. It's the basis of democracy and the way things are supposed to work.
If you go somewhere with PR you'll see lots of parties who have a key area of focus and some larger 'broad church' parties who tend to be the senior parties in coalitions.
Small broad church parties tend not to last long. The Lib-Dems are a small broad church party whose 'middle of the road' niche disappeared with Blair.
Closer ties to Europe with the eventual aim of rejoining (bearing in mind there’s a difference between having a commitment to something and campaigning on it when most of the public just want Brexit to go away)?
Electoral reform so people’s vote actually counts for something?
Proper devolution so local areas have actual power vs. the centralising tendency of the other main parties?
Repeal of the more authoritarian law e.g. the abhorrent Public Order Act 2023 which Lab have said they’ll keep?
These all sound good. Which ones are they prepared to give up on and which will they fight to the death for, even if it means a supply and confidence arrangement instead of a coalition?
Or is the most single most important thing that they form a coalition government even if it means abandoning all those policy areas?
So exactly as I said, “The also-rans you listed are pretty much all single-policy parties.”
Could you name a second policy those parties have? I couldn’t.
I couldn't mention a second policy UKIP had. And yet here we are, out of the EU.
You don't change a country with a FPTP electoral system by voting one of the two big parties. You change it by not voting for the two main parties. UKIP showed that if you stop voting for the Tories they will chase your vote by going where you went. No reason to think Labour wouldn't do the same.
It's not a football game. The important thing is not that your team wins. The important thing is to get the outcome you want.
And when was that, the 1970s? The 1920s?
Mid-90s. It died with Blair's arrival.
I would assume the lib Dems,
Middle of the road is Lib-Dem because Lib-Dems are middle of the road?
Can you not think of a definition of the gap in policy between Labour and Conservatives that isn't a tautology?
If you can't I'm not surprised. It doesn't exist anymore.
The Lib-Dems are a small broad church party whose ‘middle of the road’ niche disappeared with Blair.
What does that mean?
Support for the LibDems relentlessly grew in every election from the time Tony Blair first became prime minister right up until the Tory-LibDem coalition government.
Are you saying that Tony Blair forced the LibDems to abandon the middle-of-the-road and become more left-wing? If so you might have a point.
It's a shame that Nick Clegg chose to jump the other way when he became leader though.
Are you saying that Tony Blair forced the LibDems to abandon the middle-of-the-road and become more left-wing? If so you might have a point.
No, I'm saying the middle of the road disappeared when Labour embraced neo-liberalism.
For whatever reason people (such as myself) thought that the Lib-Dems were the new home for those of us who wanted a left wing government.
How completely wrong we were.
Small broad church parties tend not to last long
Evidence please. The Greens are just as much a broad church if not more so, given that there's a definite urban socialist/social democrat wing and a rural small c conservative wing. The same is also true of the SNP as the recent leadership election demonstrated (and presumably Plaid). I suppose the thing that unites the LDs is a commitment to liberalism, in the same way that environmentalism and nationalism unite the Greens or SNP?
If we ever get a proportional voting system, it's possible the LDs might splinter into 'modern SDP' and 'Orange Book' factions, but I thought it was widely held that the only things holding the very broad church Lab and Conservative Parties together was FPTP.
Which ones are they prepared to give up on and which will they fight to the death for, even if it means a supply and confidence arrangement instead of a coalition?
I think the hardest sell is probably devolution given the NE assembly was knocked back in a local referendum.
I don't think a long-term goal of closer ties with the EU +/- rejoin is negotiable, but (bearing in mind the EU would want to have us back) it could be a long term commitment.
Electoral reform would be a red line - this was one of the lessons learned from 2010. Ironically AV was only chosen over a properly proportional system as they thought Lab would be more likely to support it. On the other hand, if they'd asked for STV for local elections, that would probably have gone through (because neither Lab nor the Tories value their local government base) - would that be enough of a commitment to LD values for you?
I think some of the more authoritarian stuff would have to be red lined too.
For whatever reason people (such as myself) thought that the Lib-Dems were the new home for those of us who wanted a left wing government.
How completely wrong we were.
Nah, during the Charles Kennedy era the LibDems were a vaguely left-wing, and definitely anti-war, party. If you were opposed to neoliberalism supporting the LibDems was definitely a step in the right direction.
I thought it was widely held that the only things holding the very broad church Lab and Conservative Parties together was FPTP.
Yup. Definitely in the case of the broad church Labour Party. Perhaps not so much for the Tories as traditionally they tend to be much more united anyway. Partly no doubt because much of the Tory membership probably isn't that interested in politics.
