[Closed] The Lib Dems and British political tribalism

A very strong and stable question.....goddamit!

FPTP is the problem

Because they're liars, and sell their "principles" to the highest bidder.

(eg Alistair Carmichael, student fees etc)

So no different from the other parties.

I mean, they aren't nasty

really ? Quite prepared to prop up a minority tory government. Vote lib get Tory.

Not really sure.
They were punished for no reason for doing a good job as a minor partner in a coalition.
They got the increase in tax free allowance started, which is an excellent policy and now continuing without them, and they stopped the conservatives doing some more rightist stuff that they have indulged in since.
I'll be voting for LD, and luckily enough i'm in a seat where that may actually count for something.
Agree with @kormoran, think they'd do much better outside a FPTP system.

really ? Quite prepared to prop up a minority tory government. Vote lib get Tory.

Sorry, but horseshit. That's just way too simplistic an answer, and reflects an incredibly blinkered understanding of how it is a multi-party must inevitably work when in a minority situation.

In Canada, not only is there a national parliament, but each individual province has one too - for the most part with the same party make-up. Consequently, I have seen more than one political coalition, and when the smaller coalition partner lends its voice to the larger, compromises need to be made. That's just the way it is. In fact, I think that the Tories would have been far more 'nasty' without their liberal partners than they were in the last parliament.

I always voted for the Lib dems, so difficult for me to objectively deconstruct there lack of westminster presence. however the biggest questions facing the nation since i started voting imo, the war in iraq, and the financial crisis, the libs have been on the right side of the argument. I remeber Vince cable pushing Brown on the property bubble on several occasions.
Weird how some people start spitting with anger over the student fees fiasco, yet happily vote Labour, who introduced them.

Vote lib get Tory

Despite subsequent evidence that the Lib Dem part of the coalition reined in some of the Tory excess that has since come out?

I agree that the marginalisation of the Lib Dems is a bit odd - originally of course there was only the Liberal and Tory parties before the Labour movement came about relatively recently in historical terms.

I'm not sure what they have to do - everyone seems to hate the Tories, everyone seems to like Labour but not enough to vote for them, the Lib Dems should be reclaiming lost ground.

I do wonder if the age of the Interweb argument has made everything completely black and white - or in this case, red and blue. No one seems to have the concept of a grey area, a middle ground, a compromise, like tuition fees (a Labour government invention, of course). Everything has to be all or nothing for people these days, which could be seen as idealistic, or could be tribal. A sensible middle ground acknowledging both sides of the problem would be nice to have, I believe.

MoreCashThanDash, you cast the question better than I have. Cheers.

The issue with the LibDems isn't about FPTP because at perhaps 8% of the vote they're irrelevant anyway. The problem is that they have proved themselves turncoat scum that will do anything for a sniff of power and/or a ministerial car.

I heard Tim Farron on the radio yesterday and pretty much his policies seemed the be "we will tell you anything you want to hear if you'll vote for us".

Why do the British not take the Lib Dems more seriously?

Forget the current leader, or the supposed self-betrayal in their 'u-turn' on tuition fees

FPTP is the problem

It is, and yet when the LDs say that it's seen as a party political issue.

Both the other main parties have had opportunities to sort the electoral system they haven't taken (in one case, having promised in their manifesto they'd do it).

Another problem is that, unlike the Tories or Labour (or, I suppose, the SNP or Plaid) there is no LD 'core vote' and there's a certain amount of evidence that the party does better when an election isn't seen as close between the main two parties, and vice versa.

DOI: both a Lib Dem and a member of the ERS.

Would that be a reference to the u-turn on tuition fees that means graduates will save £600 a year?

MONEY! Its that simple LD get no money in comparison to the Troy or Lab. Spending during last 4 general elections...

Con : £63M
Lab : £49M
LD : £14M
UKIP : £5M

They just aren't in the same spending league. And because of that, lots of high flying wannabes wont go near them. So they dont get the same sort of talent. I'll wager the ratio of Oxbridge members directly mirrors that spending list.

As a few have already ably demonstrated I'm not sure the British public are quite sophisticated enough to appreciate the complexities of the coalition government. With the current electoral system that's the best anyone who votes LD in a constituency election can expect in a national context. They would have to get enough critical mass behind them that they looked like they had a had sniff of an overall victory before the more 'rustic' of our voting brethren would give them the time of day.

In terms of Scotland, they have a leader that is so cringeworthy that he makes wee Kezia Dugdale seem competent by comparison.

In principle, I should vote LD, in reality I don't, and can't see me doing so.

In terms of Scotland, they have a leader that is so cringeworthy that he makes wee Kezia Dugdale seem competent by comparison.

Jo Swinson seems very sensible though.

As a few have already ably demonstrated I'm not sure the British public are quite sophisticated enough to appreciate the complexities of the coalition government.

Lovely phraseology!

The student loan thing was forced on them by George Osborne.

He was the one who set the budget for the Education department (or whatever it was called) such that they had no choice but to choose between cutting primary school funding or student loan funding, or bailing out of the coalition and potentially crashing the economy.

I'm not sure the British public are quite sophisticated enough

Must be more sophisticated than the majority of the USA public, just for letting Old Trumpy Custard Brains get this far.

I'll be voting Lib Dem up here in Durham. Always been Liberal in my views. Yes I know Farron comes across as a bit of a plonker. The Conservatives couldn't give a damn about the NE and Labour just take us for granted as a done deal vote wise. I'm voting Labour cos me Stone Age ancestors did b@llocks. You've got to look after the less fortunate in society but it helps if you're prepared to work for a living and contribute.

Must be more sophisticated than the majority of the USA public, just for letting Old Trumpy Custard Brains get this far.

No matter how unfair FPTP is, or how wrong it is to have an appointed/hereditary upper chamber (with bishops!) in the 21st century, the one thing we [b]can[/b] say is that the Americans have it worse.

Unfortunately for the LD and for the British public I do not know the answer

[quote=Junkyard ]

Why do the British not take the Lib Dems more seriously?
Forget the current leader, or the supposed self-betrayal in their 'u-turn' on tuition fees

or maybe you just did. I'll let you think about it, but you know my views on the changes to tuition fees under the coalition government and also my views on the attitudes of other people (who supposedly would otherwise vote Lib Dem) to those changes.

I'm voting Lib Dem BTW

I'll be voting Lib Dem up here in Durham.

If it wasn't for the Con/Lib coalition we wouldn't have had the opportunity to vote on electoral reform. A referendum which demonstrated the sheer idiocy of the majority of the British people.

I am not sure exactly what Lib Dems stand for tbh ... Save the world? Save mankind? What? What they are trying to save? 😆

slowoldman - Member
If it wasn't for the Con/Lib coalition we wouldn't have had the opportunity to vote on electoral reform. A referendum which demonstrated the sheer idiocy of the majority of the British people.

@chewkw: You touch on precisely one of things I was trying to get at.

Parties generally represent an ideology. So, the Conservatives are built on a philosophical foundation of classical conservatism, both in economic and social terms. Labour is built on a trade unionist, 19th century socialist foundation. And the Lib Dems are meant to represent classical liberalism.

As with EVERY PARTY ON EARTH, their respective policies will only ever imperfectly reflect these foundations; but the parties still represent an [I]idea[/I], even when their policies at any given time fail to.

That is why I am genuinely so puzzled about the lack of support for the Lib Dems. I mean, in spite of all the talk on here about people being 'lefties', I would guess that in fact, most people on here are pretty normal liberals. But this does not seem to be reflected politically.

Very valid points, all of them. I think it would be in all of our interests too have a valid, credible third choice. I think many aren't particularly voting [i]for[/i] a party as much as against one.

Lim dems do terribly under fptp
[img] [/img]

Nobeerinthefridge - Member
In terms of Scotland, they have a leader that is so cringeworthy that he makes wee Kezia Dugdale seem competent by comparison.

In principle, I should vote LD, in reality I don't, and can't see me doing so.

They used to do well in Scotland when they had Home Rule in their policy.

People vote for winners.
Simple statement but in reality they do, the Lib Dems needed to prove that they could win before enough people would vote for them. Yes FPTP doesn't help but it is the system in play.
The previous accusations were that they could make up nice policy as the chances of implementing it were slim to none.
What people saw as abandoning principles was IMHO a very noble attempt to bring the UK into the modern world and work together for the common good. As was mentioned above people seem stuck in black and white thinking where something can only be good or bad with no room in the middle. People need to learn to compromise in order to get something done - Something that Brexit will highlight to us.

The Lib Dems lost a lot of key talent at the last election and have not managed to rebuild.

I do wonder if the age of the Interweb argument has made everything completely black and white -

'Goodies vs baddies' is as old as the hills. The 'mediate/moderate' niche is a waste of ink if you're in the business of making money off the outrages of red vs blue. We are infantilizing. We are framing things in the schoolyard manner.

Whose 'side' are you on?

Freedom vs enslavement?
Hard work vs lazy commies?
heartless racists vs compassionate world citizens?
'Anything goes' homo-loving, terrorist-appeasing, jobless tree-hugging dirty hippies vs brown-people bombing, homophobic, greedy, polluting, corporate Bible-bots?

The 'left vs right' narrative has indeed appeared to enjoy an exponential bloom along with the expansion of blogs/social media. What I see is that we in the UK are becoming more USian. Politics as a spectator sport. Who do you back - the champions of humanity? Or the scumbags? Pick one. It really is shit IMHO.

The Lib Dems lost a lot of key talent at the last election and have not managed to rebuild.

This is also a factor.

I do wonder if the age of the Interweb argument has made everything completely black and white

Aye, and in the meantime people vote blindly for parties that don't best represent their views (which isn't me saying everyone should vote LD; I'm sure it was Adele who went on about being a dyed in the wool Lab voter, then expressed a load of Tory views); social media has become an echo chamber which makes compromise more difficult; and many, many people live in safe seats and are effectively disenfranchised.

Many people can compromise, they can also see a complete capitulation on your principles.

Clegg never needed to do what he chose to do of course its fair to judge them on this and trying to blame something other than their decisions for this is neither helpful nor accurate

It may be fair to say they are being judged more harshly but the tuition fee pledge and subsequent actions was indefensible

It may be fair to say they are being judged more harshly but the tuition fee pledge and subsequent actions was indefensible

Yeah, they should have just cut primary school teachers instead, and gone to 45 pupils to a class.

I'll be voting Lib Dem.

Many people can compromise, they can also see a complete capitulation on your principles.

Clegg never needed to do what he chose to do of course its fair to judge them on this and trying to blame something other than their decisions for this is neither helpful nor accurate

It may be fair to say they are being judged more harshly but the tuition fee pledge and subsequent actions was indefensible

I disagree..

[b]At the time[/b] it looked like coalition was the only way of providing a stable government in the midst of a financial crash, and there was no way (even without Brown) that Lab could've formed one.

[url= https://whatthehellhavethelibdemsdone.com/ ]The Lib Dems achieved a reasonable amount in government[/url], especially reining in the Tory right excess we've seen since 2015. But they were the junior partner in a coalition, which naturally meant they were going to have to compromise more.

Conceding on tuition fees was a mistake (especially without red lines on constitutional reform) and I don't think anyone would say otherwise, but show me a party that has never broken a manifesto pledge. What else did they do that was indefensible?

personally, I think that most folk in this country align themselves with a centre right standpoint, and that's largely the Conservatives. When they (the Tory party) get too right wing then they get slapped by a vote for Labour.

Some good points, especially that people vote for winners. If you're in a safe Con/Lab seat there's very little incentive to vote regardless of your chosen party - that's the main problem with FPTP, it kills involvement.

I've voted a mix of Conservative and Liberal all my life dependant on policy e.g. I voted for Chris Patton when Labour were in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

[url= http://vfp.me/WNBZ8nQSYvZ2swuNu ]This[/url] site (Vote for Policies) is interesting - you select from a series of policies and it shows what party you're most aligned to.

that's the main problem with FPTP, it kills involvement.

I'd go further than that, and say that the main problems with FPTP are that it's regressive, undemocratic and leads to the polarisation of political views rather than the building of consensus.

The ERS* say that >50% of UK seats are safe. This is not democracy.

My local city council has 94/96 councillors from the same party, from 60% of the vote. There is no effective opposition. This is not democracy either.

We should move to AV+ for the Commons, and STV for local and Lords.

* I concede they may have a vested interest.

As a card carrying lib dem I should be in favour of PR but surely it would have given UKIP/BNP more power?
I'm more than willing to be proved wrong as PR is fairer system.

It would have given UKIP/BNP more representation. The Conservatives might have relied on UKIP as part of a coalition but all the mainstream parties would shun the BNP.

As a card carrying lib dem I should be in favour of PR but surely it would have given UKIP/BNP more power?

It might have done, it might not have done. What we don't know is how many people would have voted for UKIP if they'd known there was a serious chance of them getting elected. Also, once a party is elected then their views are subject to the full glare of public scrutiny, and in any case they'd have to be part of a coalition to have any real power (and as Murray said above, everyone would shun the BNP even if they managed to avoid knifing each other in the back for more than 30 sec).

To turn this argument on its head, other small parties such as the Greens are unlikely to gain many seats under FPTP.

I think focussing on this one potential downside of PR misses the many other benefits, and it's not like the Scottish Assembly (which uses AV+) is full of racists...

The reason noone votes for the Lib Dems, although objectively they are the best party, is that people are awful and stupid and our voting system is crap. Also people are stupid. We are a terrible species and the world would be better without us. Not that there is any form of judgement on these things. nature doesn't actually care.