[Politics] Lib Dem leadership contest.

[Pavilionaire]

Labour managed to establish themselves under FPTP, why is it that Liberals can retake their place as the main party of centre left?

The reason is that they are tainted beyond repair because they entered coalition with the Tories. To European voters that is a normal situation but to UK voters who like their politics in binary form that was too much to deal with, and enforced compromises over policy are interpreted as pure betrayal.

In a parallel universe the Lib Dems enter coalition with Labour, find they have enough common aims - including their visceral hatred of the Tories - and merge the parties from a position of strength.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Lib Dems need to fold really. Reduced to their traditional single figure irrelevance. Only way forward is to form an alliance - as a junior party -with the Greens IMHO cos those GenXYZ whatever teenies who can be arsed to vote are hardly likely to vote for The Man - which includes the LibDems that tripled their tuition fees despite promising something completely different

 

[Pretty pink fairy]

Flakey liberalism like every Premier League player replacing their name on their shirt with "Black Lives Matter" and taking the knee? Having women present and commentate on sport? Having news programmes like Channel 4 News that are truly intelligent and independant? Cycle lanes? Popular vegan restaurants? That flakey liberalism?

Yes all looking after their own interests, well done you bought into it a lot of people haven't
Regards
DF

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

The reason is that they are tainted beyond repair because they entered coalition with the Tories. To European voters that is a normal situation but to UK voters who like their politics in binary form that was too much to deal with, and enforced compromises over policy are interpreted as pure betrayal.

In a parallel universe the Lib Dems enter coalition with Labour, find they have enough common aims - including their visceral hatred of the Tories - and merge the parties from a position of strength.

I agree in principle that post 2010 this sounded like a good idea.

The problem was Gordon Brown being a non-starter, then you would have had a new PM post election having not led their party and leading the country despite finishing 2nd & 3rd.

 

[BLOCK F]

That's great if true



And that's not unexpected. But if we have to extend points in any points based system to fruit pickers or (say) cleaners or chamber maids then surely we'd end up where we are today? Maybe they'd end up Fillipino instead of Eastern European?

Who knows, but I know I won't be putting my name forward. At 72 and exceedingly creaky, I just about managed to pick a few tomatoes and strawberries in the garden this morning, before sitting down and demanding a huge cup of tea from my, luckily younger and fitter, dear wife.

 

[beorhthelm]

The reason is that they are tainted beyond repair because they entered coalition with the Tories. To European voters that is a normal situation but to UK voters who like their politics in binary form that was too much to deal with, and enforced compromises over policy are interpreted as pure betrayal.

In a parallel universe the Lib Dems enter coalition with Labour, find they have enough common aims - including their visceral hatred of the Tories - and merge the parties from a position of strength.

overlooking over 50 years and many elections, blaming it all on one coalition. think the Liberals really need to find the answer to make themselves established again.

which pretty much worked out, if people want to sell PR point its not a bad reference. except as you say there is a perception it was terrible, due to one single policy concession.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Yes all looking after their own interests, well done you bought into it a lot of people haven't
Regards
DF

The obvious point was that none of that would exist if "flakey liberalism" had been "destroyed".

Now, probably time for you to head back down the Pit, the big boys are talking on this thread at the moment.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Lib Dems need to fold really. Reduced to their traditional single figure irrelevance. Only way forward is to form an alliance - as a junior party -with the Greens IMHO cos those GenXYZ whatever teenies who can be arsed to vote are hardly likely to vote for The Man - which includes the LibDems that tripled their tuition fees despite promising something completely different

The Greens are even further to the left than Corbyn, so how would that alliance EVER work?

I'm not going to go there on broken promises, other than to say Boris is the king of broken promises, yet has been getting away with it his whole life and always lives to fight another day.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The Greens are even further to the left than Corbyn, so how would that alliance EVER work?

I'm not going to go there on broken promises, other than to say Boris is the king of broken promises, yet has been getting away with it his whole life and always lives to fight another day.

All these young kids skiving off double maths on a Friday to go on climate change marches? How are they ever going to vote anything other than Green? Lim Dems might pick up a bit of sloppy seconds locally, but that's about it

 

[Westdene Seagull]

voting should be compulsory IMO . . .turnout is average, quite justifiably as a lot of people consider their vote to be worthless, its also very much dependant on where you live.

I think they would be interested in parties iof THEY WERE ANY GOOD . . . brainwashing by the press doesn't help, but generations of ill educated minions has seen to that. . . .

I don't agree at all ( I don't vote in PCC elections because I don't think the police should have a political leader as an example ) .... but, if it is to be then only under two conditions :

1. MPs can't ever abstain from a vote - if I can't why should they be able to ?

2. There is an extra box added to voting papers - "None of the Below" - needs to be at the top and if it gets a majority then the vote has to be re-run with entirely different candidates.

 

[zefarelly]

There aren't many loopholes in personal taxation - IR35 is probably the largest current one, and that should be mostly removed from April 2021. The other significant one I can think of is Inheritance Tax Business Relief and Agricultural Relief, which allow wealthy landowners to pass on their landed estates virtually tax free, whilst the estates of ordinary homeowners pay tax above £325k - this however only benefits a very small number of people, and represents a piddlingly small loss to the exchequer.

Corporate taxation is different, especially for multinational businesses such as Barclays. However, even this is being significantly reined in through BEPS and DAC6.

the vast majority of us get taxed before we see it . . . . the landed gentry/look after themselves ( very well) first. I'd like to know what piddlingly small is . . enough to build a few schools or a hospital maybe ? Duke of Westminsters fortune for example . . . . maybe the trust laws need ammending.

 

[blue-shifted]

That's not true. The Lib Dems pushed Cameron on Proportional Representation and he was only willing to agree to the compromise 'Alternative Vote System'. The Tories helped delay the Referendum until May 2011, giving them enough time to paint the Lib Dems into a corner over tuition fees and thereby cooking their political goose. Then, when the Referendum came around, Cameron made his feelings known, describing AV as "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy". Consequently, AV lost the Referendum 68%-32% with a derisory 42% turnout.

That showed the British public didn't care enough to change FPTP, while the fate of the Lib Dems since 2011 shows you -and the electorate generally - are completely unforgiving about their misdemeanours, whilst willing to tolerate almost anything the Tories do. Despite 65,000 excess deaths, the education exam result fiasco, no-deal Brexit etc voters will still vote Tory in GE 2025 whilst reminding us how about the Lib Dems did a u-turn on tuition fees 15 years earlier and therefore cannot EVER be trusted again.

Again in 2019, the Lib Dems were humiliated because of their policy to reverse Brexit if they should have won a majority in the House of Commons. Arguably, that policy showed too much conviction.

The bottom line is it's not about missed opportunities, it's about cold, hard political realism and that if you get into bed with the Tories they will f*ck you and f*ck you hard. Just look at the DUP and the Brexit border down the Irish Sea Boris promised them they'd never get.

This is true and highlights the disconnect between what people say and what they actually mean. I doubt there is a single person out there who genuinely holds that against the Lib Dems, (they got a huge number of policies through given the were the junior coalition partner and every other party has u turned on way more stuff than that) but it's easier for people to say to others and to themselves "I'm not voting for Lib Dems because of tuition fees" than it is to say "I'm going to vote for the tories, because I've got money and they look after people like me"

 

[zefarelly]

There will of course be people who suffer however the deficit is paid for, and many of those will have voted remain - something like 35% of over 60s. I'm mid 40s, so somewhere in between, but I just get pissed off whenever I see one of Farage's Brexit rallies or events and the demographic is nearly all old folk, most of whom won't be affected by the shit storm.

you and me both . .

 

[Braggfan]

That's not true. The Lib Dems pushed Cameron on Proportional Representation and he was only willing to agree to the compromise 'Alternative Vote System'. The Tories helped delay the Referendum until May 2011, giving them enough time to paint the Lib Dems into a corner over tuition fees and thereby cooking their political goose. Then, when the Referendum came around, Cameron made his feelings known, describing AV as "undemocratic, obscure, unfair and crazy". Consequently, AV lost the Referendum 68%-32% with a derisory 42% turnout.

That showed the British public didn't care enough to change FPTP, while the fate of the Lib Dems since 2011 shows you -and the electorate generally - are completely unforgiving about their misdemeanours, whilst willing to tolerate almost anything the Tories do. Despite 65,000 excess deaths, the education exam result fiasco, no-deal Brexit etc voters will still vote Tory in GE 2025 whilst reminding us how about the Lib Dems did a u-turn on tuition fees 15 years earlier and therefore cannot EVER be trusted again.

Again in 2019, the Lib Dems were humiliated because of their policy to reverse Brexit if they should have won a majority in the House of Commons. Arguably, that policy showed too much conviction.

The bottom line is it's not about missed opportunities, it's about cold, hard political realism and that if you get into bed with the Tories they will f*ck you and f*ck you hard. Just look at the DUP and the Brexit border down the Irish Sea Boris promised them they'd never get.

Well firstly I just want to be clear I'm not having a pop at you for being a member of the lib dems, I do realise whatever mistakes I think the party made, they were hugely divided on siding with the tories and I know full well not everyone was happy with it. I'm really just registering my disappointment with the party because in my opinion they did miss a massive opportunity not just for themselves as a party but for everyone who wants to the see the voting system reformed.

The reason I think it was an opportunity missed, is not because the tories wouldn't give them what they wanted, but because the Lib Dems initially made the wrong choice. They had the choice to form government with the tories or labour. The tories offered a referendum, labour offered them electoral reform without a referendum. And that has been a long term dream of the Lib Dems. Not only would it have changed the voting system but arguably would have pretty much made them king make in any future election, as they would have been the party that formed government every time. I mean maybe it was naively thought they could push it through and get the same result with the tories, which with hindsight was a mistake. But the truth is labour's offer was what they wanted and they passed on it, which is why it's an opportunity missed.

But you're right the bottom line is, never trust a tory.

 

[schmunk]

the vast majority of us get taxed before we see it . . . . the landed gentry/look after themselves ( very well) first. I'd like to know what piddlingly small is . . enough to build a few schools or a hospital maybe ? Duke of Westminsters fortune for example . . . . maybe the trust laws need ammending.

Possibly so - I don't have numbers, but I'd estimate it's going to be in the hundreds of millions per year on average - this is however very small compared to the ca. £600 billion total annual tax take.

 

[Guinness Boy]

voting should be compulsory IMO . . .turnout is average, quite justifiably as a lot of people consider their vote to be worthless, its also very much dependant on where you live.

I think they would be interested in parties iof THEY WERE ANY GOOD . . . brainwashing by the press doesn't help, but generations of ill educated minions has seen to that. . . .

I don't agree at all ( I don't vote in PCC elections because I don't think the police should have a political leader as an example ) .... but, if it is to be then only under two conditions :

1. MPs can't ever abstain from a vote - if I can't why should they be able to ?

2. There is an extra box added to voting papers - "None of the Below" - needs to be at the top and if it gets a majority then the vote has to be re-run with entirely different candidates.

A true democracy would have compulsory voting and PR rather than FPTP. However, it's disputable whether anything would then get done in the Houses of Parliament. I can only think it would be like the Maybot's hung parliament but with less certainty - or a bit like Italy. You'd also not have a truly "local" MP looking out for their constituents.

The likely outcome of that would be a greater lack of engagement which would lead to spoiling or "none of the above" being the default option, and the need to employ divisive and binary referenda to get things done.

FPTP has its drawbacks but so does everything else ever proposed. And I strongly believe that the people who died for our right to vote also died for our right NOT to vote, even if that means a more reactionary government elected by the over 50s.

 

[Gwylan]

but it's easier for people to say to others and to themselves "I'm not voting for Lib Dems because of tuition fees" than it is to say "I'm going to vote for the tories, because I've got money and they look after people like me"

The worry for LDs (and Labour) is that there are lot of people who haven't got money and still vote Tory. There was a voter interviewed in somewhere like Bishop's Auckland or Blyth who using a food bank and voting Tory "because it was time for a change".

If you throw in the people living in poverty who don't vote (and they're pretty big non-voters) and you can see why the Conservatives get in.

 

[Pavilionaire]

This is true and highlights the disconnect between what people say and what they actually mean. I doubt there is a single person out there who genuinely holds that against the Lib Dems, (they got a huge number of policies through given the were the junior coalition partner and every other party has u turned on way more stuff than that) but it's easier for people to say to others and to themselves "I'm not voting for Lib Dems because of tuition fees" than it is to say "I'm going to vote for the tories, because I've got money and they look after people like me"

The only thing that unites the Labour voter and the Tory voter is their dislike of the Liberal Democrats, and yet when you boil it down most people you talk to ARE politically moderate. I hardly know any ideological socialists or ERG/ UKIP-types. Logically, a centrist party should have a sizeable chunk of the vote but our press, media, Houses of Parliament like to frame everything in binary terms.

It is easier to decide if you have two polar choices; anything else just involves a lot of reading, listening, contemplation, nuance and THINKING, and who has the time for that?!?

 

[zefarelly]

. You'd also not have a truly "local" MP looking out for their constituents.
.

No change for many there then.

 

[Pavilionaire]

The reason I think it was an opportunity missed, is not because the tories wouldn't give them what they wanted, but because the Lib Dems initially made the wrong choice. They had the choice to form government with the tories or labour. The tories offered a referendum, labour offered them electoral reform without a referendum.

Not true. As Lib Dems coalition negotiator wrote in the New Statesman: "We found that the Conservatives made major policy concessions, and quickly; while, after three days of talking, Labour was too disorganised or divided even to table clear positions on tax, education spending, pensions or the deficit. And, on voting reform, Ed Balls was bluntly warning us that Labour MPs might not vote for their own manifesto pledge to support a referendum on the Alternative Vote.

Under those circumstances, our decision wasn’t difficult, and it does not need conspiracy theories to understand it. What Labour was offering us was a weak coalition with a divided Labour Party; a coalition with no majority in the House of Commons, no clear policy platform, and no guarantee of a referendum on voting reform. We would have been stark staring mad to accept such a proposition. So, by the time Gordon Brown realised that only a Lib Dem-Labour coalition could keep Labour in power, it was, in effect, one minute past midnight, and too late for such a deal to succeed.

The more interesting question, on which Andrew and others need to reflect, is why Labour did not seize the opportunities to create such a partnership with the Liberal Democrats over the previous 15 years, when partnership was both possible and workable. That is the historic opportunity missed. But I would gently suggest that it is Labour, rather than the Liberal Democrats, which bears the main responsibility for that legacy."