[Closed] The Lib Dems and British political tribalism

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

There would be no government and opposition, there should be a coalition government (well actually an administration) made up of all those who were voted in.

Is there anywhere other than, I think, Switzerland that do this, though?

I don't see anything wrong with having a Government (whose role is to govern) and an Opposition (whose role is to hold the government to account). What [b]is[/b] wrong is the current situation where 40% of the vote leads to an absolute majority in parliament.

Interesting topic, my 2 cents:

1) Choice of leader - I liked Nick Clegg (remember 'I agree with Nick'?) and Charles Kennedy was one of the first politicians I remember agreeing with and respecting. I haven't felt the same empathy or respect for Farron or Willie Rennie, just can't take either of them seriously.

2) As said above, I think the two party thing has an impact, I was struggling with the choice between Labour and SNP in my seat (basically tactical vs. who I most aligned with) so a third choice just didn't really help.

3) Still don't understand why people judge them so harshly on the Tuiton Fees thing, is there a politician/party out there who could withstand that level of scrutiny and judgement?

4) They used to be dominant in Scotland (I think? I was pretty young) but I guess much of their core were potential Yes voters who switched to SNP?

They used to be dominant in Scotland (I think? I was pretty young) but I guess much of their core were potential Yes voters who switched to SNP?

Not sure how much of what happened in the last GE was due to all the Yes voters voting SNP, and the No vote being split? It will be interesting to see what happens this time (and next whenever that might be).

The problem with the Lib Dems is that they behave like a major political party, which (arguably) they no longer are. They need to behave more like a grass roots insurgency with young energetic and educated people fronting the campaign. Sadly, a snap election can't be fought like this.

It also needs those who're voting for them to do more. I'm a paid up member of the Lib Dems, campaigned for remain during the Referendum and have been going door to door over the past 3 weeks with my now 3 week old daughter. Those that care need to do more than simply tick a box if they want real political change in this country.

[URL= http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u161/Razors_kiss/7A0D811D-F7F0-4F7A-95A8-27E9D1F3C665_zpscmbnfsim.jp g" target="_blank">http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u161/Razors_kiss/7A0D811D-F7F0-4F7A-95A8-27E9D1F3C665_zpscmbnfsim.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Visible to all as they enter the village...even at night due to solar lights 🙂

They need to behave more like a grass roots insurgency with young energetic and educated people fronting the campaign. Sadly, a snap election can't be fought like this.

Hasn't the LD way always been built off starting with local activism, then local councillors, then eventually getting to a point where a run at the Westminster constituency becomes practical? As you say, this takes time.

The issue with the LibDems isn't about FPTP because at perhaps 8% of the vote they're irrelevant anyway.

Well, that's nonsense, I've already voted Labour (postal vote), to try and kick out our Comservative MP, yet would vote LibDem if it wasn't for FPTP. So I'm not in that 8% but would consider myself strongly supportive of the LibDems, in fact I'm a member.

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

True, they lost their best MPs, and held onto some of their worst. People judge parties by their MPs more than their other elected officials, and there were less than a handful of [s]impressive[/s] half decent LibDem MPs when the election was called.

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.

And then we'd have ended up leaving the EU, moving back towards a discredited education system that favours the middle classes, and the government would have moved to the right… … oh, hold on…

The issue with the LibDems isn't about FPTP because at perhaps 8% of the vote they're irrelevant anyway.

I've thought about this a bit more overnight and have come to a possibly slightly tenuous conclusion.

1. Lib Dem support has been a predominantly middle class thing. I'd like to see the stats if they exist but I'd be willing to punt that a larger than average number of LD voters are middle class and degree educated.

2. Voting for the big two parties has predominantly been about ME ME ME. It's been about voting for the party that would protect YOUR workers rights, YOUR social support or YOUR right to buy YOUR council house or YOU paying less tex. Voting LD both in terms of the policies and the language used to sell them has been about US. A lot of LD voters are voting for a party promoting policies that would not directly benefit them but would make the community they live in more caring, prosperous or safe.

Conclusion - the Lib Dems will only become successful nationally when a larger sector of society is prepared or able to vote big picture and focus less on their personal needs.

yet would vote LIbDem if it wasn't for FPTP.

It's interesting you say that; I wonder how many people might vote LD (or indeed Green, or other smaller parties) if there was a chance of their vote translating into an elected representative.

This is the converse of what I said above about people thinking twice before voting UKIP if they were actually going to get elected, of course.

As aside, from the Tory manifesto:

We will retain the first past the post system of voting for parliamentary elections and extend this system to police and crime commissioner and mayoral elections

So their policy on this is actually regressive.

Conclusion - the Lib Dems will only become successful nationally when a larger sector of society is prepared or able to vote big picture and focus less on their personal needs

A strong (and depressing) conclusion.

I'd add in that smaller parties tend to have their more populist policies co-opted by (normally in a weaker form) the bigger parties, and less headline grabbing policies ignored. This applies to UKIP and the Greens as well of course.

UK voting or FPTP relies on concentrated support. The lib dems had missed out on power for so long, they probably forgot what it was like. There's always a difference between ideals and reality. Canada seems a bit like France, Switzerland or Germany. More active participants and higher equality. No party can be too radical. I think their soft stance on dope will pick up housing estate votes and they've reverted to honesty on tax n' spend. This thread is a case in point. we're all happy to sit here expressing great ideas, but who's out knocking on doors, sticking up posters and going to council meetings?

This thread is a case in point. we're all happy to sit here expressing great ideas, but who's out knocking on doors, sticking up posters and going to council meetings?

Daffy?

I wish they were bigger and think they are more relevant in the modern world that Labour. I also think they did fine in the coalition and were unfairly punished. However, Farron is just so limp compared to his predecessors and doesn't seem all that liberal in some of his views.

One reason they may not be so popular is that are only ~35 years old. The current pay aren't the same as the one Gladstone and Lloyd-George led. (Actually the initial liberal party rot set in with Lloyd-George at the helm and the resulting sudden rise of labour.)

Farron is just so limp compared to his predecessors

Maybe so, but it is said he's far more popular with the party grassroots than Clegg.

Not sure he's that illiberal though. [url= http://www.markpack.org.uk/150216/liberal-democrats-uk-general-election-ideology/ ]Mark Pack (who is, IIRC, a former LD strategist) has written a piece about how the perception of the LD position changes based on context[/url], rather than the position itself actually changing.

Gladstone and Home Rule for Ireland was the beginning of the end.

I think convert is on to something up there. It's me vs us, and the Lib Dems and Greens are the only real "us" options.

Mind you, just done the "vote for policies" questionnaire, is was 35% labour and 28% Ukip. WTAF? 😳

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

I'll be voting Lib Dem.

@morecashthandash

An excellent site.. more people should try it out. For a no party stated, just policy survey it is very interesting.

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk

Myself:

50% Labour
20% Green
20% Liberal
10% UKIP
with not a bit of Tory in sight.

More interesting as the national results after 189000 surveys taken

25.6% Labour
21.6% Green
20.0% Liberal
16.4% UKIP
15.4% Tory
00.4% SNP
00.3% Plaid Cymru
00.3% Scottish Green

The breakdown of the top party in the 13 Policy Areas listed are:

Labour:

NHS, Economy, Housing, Retirement

Green:

Education, Europe/Brexit, Jobs/Work, Equality/Rights, Democracy, Foreign Policy/Defense

Liberal:

Environment, Crime

UKIP:

Tax/Benefits, Immigration

Tory:

None

Will the same show through on the 8th June?

I didn't look too closely at the breakdown, but I turned out 50% LD in that survey, with 25% Labour, and 25% of something I'm too ashamed to share.

I see they're making a thing of a rising star of the conservatives jumping ship; Azi Ahmed, a unrepentant liar. She fabricated a whole story about attending UKSF section, even profited from a book about it, total fiction. She won't help their case in the slightest.

I'm old school and actually vote for a local MP to represent me, and that's why I'd vote Lib Dem as the local Tory muppet is worse than useless (and not that I'd ever vote Labour, but Labour candidate doesn't stand a chance in Tory Surrey anyway). I'm not much of a Farron fan, certainly not Mrs May. Jezza is "a nice bloke" and has some nice views but again I'd never vote Labour, and more so in that Jezza also has a lot of views I strongly disagree with, and no matter how nice he is I can't vote for the things he stands for. So, my vote goes on who can represent me in parliament.

Sadly though, the country has changed in the last decade or so to an American style presidential election and it's all about voting for the PM not the local candidate, and there's really only ever two viable candidates in that. People don't look at the names on the ballot paper, just the party. I feel sorry for the people who will vote in an incompetent MP just to vote in their choice of PM.

As for the tuition fees, that was blown way out of proportion. Their manifesto promise would only apply if they were outright in charge in government. It was never going to happen under a coalition and not much they could have done about it. No lies going on, but they were slaughtered at the last election because of it.

As for the tuition fees, that was blown way out of proportion.Their manifesto promise would only apply if they were outright in charge in government.

[img] [/img]

On that voteforpolicies.org.uk my results were

Green Party 35.7%
Labour 35.7%
Liberal Democrats 21.4%
Conservatives 7.1%

For me the the trouble with the lib dems going into the coalition with the tories was that they sold out their support and core values when they had the politically closer option of a labour coalition. In fact at that time they were probably further left than Labour. The people who voted for them in that election did not vote for them to prop up a right wing Government, it doesn't matter if they were able to temper the worst of tory excesses, they still enabled them to do far more damage than if they hadn't supported them.

It wasn't the electorate that misunderstood the complexities of coalition, but the lib dems who misunderstood what their supporters believed in.

SaxonRider says......."Vote Whig!"

You'll be repealing the Corn Laws next.

Junkyard - lazarus 
Just not true

A pledge based on him just being an MP in parliament, not part of coalition government. Compromise had to be made, or rather as the minor party in the coalition they had to do what they were told.

Besides, breaking a pledge like that didn't justify the hammering they got by people voting far more for the far bigger liars.

It wasn't the electorate that misunderstood the complexities of coalition, but the lib dems who misunderstood what their supporters believed in.

They also didn't heed the warning from their previous leader in 2010...

a subsequent assimilation within the Conservative fold

David Cameron has been here often before: from the early days of his leadership he was happy to describe himself as a 'liberal Conservative'. And we know he dislikes the term Tory. These ongoing efforts at appropriation are going to have to be watched

Tried out voteforpolicies.
That's now 4 of that type of quiz i've done, and 4 different parties (con/lib/lab/ukip) i've been told I should vote for. 😕
Maybe I should try and find a couple more and see if I can collect greens and snp 😆

What else did they do that was indefensible?

Along with Milliband and almost his entire party, they failed to reign in Iain Duncan Smith, Esther McVey & David Freud in their reign of murder and mental torture. Hyperbole? Too far?
WCA, nudge unit policy, using Martin Seligman torture tactics on citizens trying to claim rightful benefits, Slave Labour, modern day workhouses for benefits /food, exponential rise of food banks, retroactively changing laws, criminalising homelesnes, criminalising squatting...
Christ, there's so much that evil Bald bastard is responsible for I've forgotten the half of it

This thread is a case in point. we're all happy to sit here expressing great ideas, but who's out knocking on doors, sticking up posters and going to council meetings?

*raises hand*

I'm the stand-in Election Agent for a Parliamentary candidate, and stood in the 2015 local council elections. Sadly, as the opinion polls have changed, [url= http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Darlington ]the constituency had become very marginal[/url] and so we're avoiding too much active campaigning to avoid the [url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/controversial-blogposts-tory-party-candidate-absolutely-shocking ]totally horrific rape-apologist Tory candidate[/url] getting elected.

I spent yesterday morning posting leaflets with the candidate in the [url= http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Sedgefield ]neighbouring safe Labour seat[/url], and yesterday afternoon with the candidate talking to residents in an [url= http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Durham+North+West ]even more safe Labour seat[/url].

Prior to 2015 I voted Lib Dem in Parliamentary elections, because I saw them as the antidote to Labour's more authoritarian streak (ID cards, Iraq War, etc.) and because the local options were Lab, Con, Lib, BNP/Ukip in a relatively safe Labour seat. I saw my vote as a direction indicator to the elected MP.

The 2010 coalition, and getting a bit older/involved, made me look close at the Lib Dems. Although socially liberal, they're economically not dissimilar to the Tories. This is part of the reason that they fitted so well with the Tories in coalition.

In 2015 I was really pleased to have the option of voting Green, and happy to have that choice again this week.

For me the the trouble with the lib dems going into the coalition with the tories was that they sold out their support and core values [i]when they had the politically closer option of a labour coalition[/i]

No, they didn't. A Lab/LD coalition wouldn't have formed a majority government, as they'd have had 315 seats, 316 if the sole Green MP had come on board.

Having said this, I don't think the coalition was all that popular with the LD membership, which is probably why Farron (from the left-leaning side of the party) got elected leader rather than Normal Lamb (from the Orange Book/Clegg side).

A pledge based on him just being an MP in parliament, not part of coalition government. Compromise had to be made, or rather as the minor party in the coalition they had to do what they were told.

Besides, breaking a pledge like that didn't justify the hammering they got by people voting far more for the far bigger liars.

This.

I don't think the coalition was all that popular with the LD membership

The 2010 candidate locally resigned his membership of the party after they tripled tuition fees. My uni-fried, who was a serving Lib Dem councillor in That London, did the same.

Whatever the rights/wrongs of the coalition, it was a huge tactical error and one that won't be soon forgotten.

They should have agreed to support a Tory minority government on a case-by-case basis, rather than entered a formal coalition.

Whatever the rights/wrongs of the coalition, it was a huge tactical error and one that won't be soon forgotten.

They should have agreed to support a Tory minority government on a case-by-case basis, rather than entered a formal coalition.

I think that's recognised, hence the statement this time round that they will not go into coalition.

They should have agreed to support a Tory minority government on a case-by-case basis, rather than entered a formal coalition.

Having spent years arguing that coalition governments - as seen on the continent - can be successful, could they have maintained any credibility if they rejected it?

I do wonder to what extent George Osborne consciously stitched them up. He did the same thing later to IDS. But perhaps it was just accidental good fortune.

Mostly FPTP, but also they burned their bridges with a lot of us by going into coalition with the Tories.

Having spent years arguing that coalition governments - as seen on the continent - can be successful, could they have maintained any credibility if they rejected it?

Probably not, though I think the assumption had always been Lib-Lab coalition rather than Lib-Tory, even with the more centrist Cameron Tories.

Mind you, the people who tactically voted Lib Dem to keep Lab out would then've been unhappy, and the Tories would've yammered on about 'Vote Lib get Lab'.

Can't win, I suspect.

I think the assumption had always been Lib-Lab coalition rather than Lib-Tory

I've never understood this as the numbers never worked for Lib-Lab pact, as pointed out above. Plus it is generally believed that Clegg had a much better working relationship with Cameron than Brown. The Lib Dems have policies that would sit happily with either the more moderates in the Conservatives or a centre ground (New) Labour party, so in theory could work with either, if the numbers work.

The Lib Dems are definitely needed in a world where Labour and Tory are racing to see who can be more authoritarian.

I used to vote lib dem, but then I lived in a lib dem safe seat. Politically, I am closest to them and think they have a lot to offer the country. To me, they are the moderates on most issues - not as spendthrift or authoritarian as Labour but more socialist than the Conservatives.

I also quite liked them in coalition. I think they did well to moderate the more extreme Conservative elements and brought forward some nice progressive policies. Coalition is better than confidence and supply, but perhaps we aren't mature enough for that. I would have happily seen another coalition in 2015.

Now I live in an area with hardly any LD votes. Much as I would like my LD vote to be seen and counted, I can also use it to influence the three parties competing in my seat so I choose to do that instead. That and Tim Farron is a twunt and not really liberal. My Holyrood and Westminster votes are cast quite differently because of the two different systems.

I've never understood this as the numbers never worked for Lib-Lab pact,

Sorry, I meant the assumption was that if coalition ever came to pass, it would be Lib-Lab. As you and I have both pointed out. the numbers didn't stack up in 2010, even if the LDs had been prepared to work with Brown, which they weren't. I missed David Ford off the previous numbers but that would still only have given 317 seats.

Tim Farron is a twunt and not really liberal.

How is he not really Liberal?

How is he not really Liberal?

Well, OK, he is probably more Liberal than he is anything else. But his take on Liberalism isn't one I find myself particularly drawn to. There are others in his part that far better suit the role. Maybe it is that he is too openly Christian for my liking (I'm an atheist and I believe strongly in a secular state).

I will never vote for them again after tuition fees.

g5604 - Member
I will never vote for them again after tuition fees.

What would labour or the tories have to do to get that sort of reaction?

make a cast iron pledge that profoundly effects me and then immediately break it at the first sniff of power.

Maybe it is that he is too openly Christian for my liking

The converse of that is to ask whether you believe all politicians should be atheists?

He doesn't handle questions about it well, I'll give you that. However, he does seem to regard his faith as a personal matter and his voting record seems to reflect that (largely).

[quote=g5604 ]I will never vote for them again after tuition fees.

So who do you vote for? The party which introduced tuition fees, or the party which made the changes to tuition fees which are apparently so heinous.

Though I'm curious exactly how it affects you - presumably you're earning well above average wage, so voting for the party which most people with that sort of salary do - ie the party actually responsible for you having to pay more for your loan?