furnessvale
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jul 2015
- Messages
- 4,576
If they carry on the way they are going this rule change will be essential, otherwise they will be leaderless!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Liberal Democrats - where next for them?
- Thread starter AlterEgo
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Cumbria is a big county, and I'm literally just round the corner from Tim's house, so no Tory councillors within 20 miles. However they do do well by their respective areas. Just don't think it's fair to accuse them of not doing anything when they're not the ones in power to make county-wide decisions.
Very true, but we get the drivel on a monthly basis. Even those not politically engaged were questioning how much is actually true this time round - it's one thing to stretch the truth in the runup to an election, but when you do it month-in month-out, people do notice.
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
Hopefully not. She was toxic and utterly useless. She had literally no idea how her time in coalition made her unelectable.
Worst leader in modern times by far. East Dunbartonshire is glad she's gone as I'm sure the country is too.
I think Layla Moran would be the best leader; new, untarnished by the coalition and has now got a much more comfortable majority. Ed Davey would probably be a steady hand but perhaps not as inspiring.
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
Can't have someone who results to physical violence. They should be disbanded in all honesty.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-england-oxfordshire-47686844
Last edited:
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Gosh, you really do have quite a vendetta against the LibDems don't you! What happened? Did a past girlfriend or boyfriend run off with a member of the LibDems or something?
More seriously, do you really think it would be a good idea for the only two large political parties across the UK be a Conservative Party that has moved further and further to the right, and a Labour Party that has moved further and further to the left, leaving nothing for people in the political centre to vote for?
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
Gosh, you really do have quite a vendetta against the LibDems don't you! What happened? Did a past girlfriend or boyfriend run off with a member of the LibDems or something?
More seriously, do you really think it would be a good idea for the only two large political parties across the UK be a Conservative Party that has moved further and further to the right, and a Labour Party that has moved further and further to the left, leaving nothing for people in the political centre to vote for?
Nothing of the sort, just pointing out the obvious. Their record speaks for itself and the recent result has proved them to be beyond useless and completely unelectable. It's actually disgraceful what they have become, Paddy Ashdown or indeed Charles Kennedy must be spinning in their respective graves.
It would seem the country also shares my view
Last edited:
bramling
Veteran Member
Gosh, you really do have quite a vendetta against the LibDems don't you! What happened? Did a past girlfriend or boyfriend run off with a member of the LibDems or something?
More seriously, do you really think it would be a good idea for the only two large political parties across the UK be a Conservative Party that has moved further and further to the right, and a Labour Party that has moved further and further to the left, leaving nothing for people in the political centre to vote for?
I agree there should be more in the way of opposition parties, however I’m coming to the conclusion the Liberal Democrats are a spent force. Thinking back through my lifetime, what have they ever actually achieved? Sure they’ve managed to be electorally popular at specific places and times, but normally off the back of bandwagon issues or by playing the “we’re not the other two” card and setting themselves up as a protest vote.
The only time they’ve been credible was during the coalition, where to be fair I don’t think they did a bad job at all - but the caveat is that this was under Clegg, who seems to have paid a heavy price for this modicum of success, as has the party as a whole.
But then I’ve never really understood Lib Dem voters. Perhaps it’s because the Lib Dems try to be all things in order to get votes, so it’s quite hard to pin down what they actually stand for.
muddythefish
On Moderation
- Joined
- 13 May 2014
- Messages
- 1,575
Many people will never forgive the Lib Dems for putting the Tories in Downing Street in 2010 - which led to 10 years of austerity and the Brexit debacle of the past 3 years. They went back on their word on student fees, and waved through Tory cuts to benefits that have so badly affected the lives of the poorest and weakest in society. Nick Clegg has so much to answer for. The party's demise cannot come soon enough.
There was a long rebuke and apology from Layla Moran on this issue, although I'm not sure of the link. Also the country actually voted more for the Lib Dems in 2019, so the country doesn't necessarily share your view.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
That just reads like a lot of vague insults without actually saying explicitly what you think is wrong. Anyone can claim 'X is disgraceful' or 'X is useless' but unless you can point to something specific that makes X disgraceful by some reasonable standard, it doesn't mean very much. What you seem to think is obvious is clearly not obvious to the millions of people who voted LibDem at the recent election. And to be honest, it's not obvious to me either. I don't particularly support the LibDems, but neither do I see anything obviously disgraceful about them. And in terms of votes, they didn't do that badly at the recent election - they increased their vote share significantly. But, as usual, they got rather badly screwed by an electoral system that tends not to reflect national vote share very well when it produces MPs.
As I recall, the last time you tried to bad-mouth the then LibDem leader on this forum, it turned out that you were basically telling fibs. Can you do any better this time?
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
Doesn't excuse what she did and not fit to be party leader just the same as if it were a bloke. Regardless of how many votes they received, they lost spectacularly.
Have you been paying attention to the pasting they just got at the ballot box? Are you actually going to try and defend the party's performance?
Here's just some of the reasons for their failure...
Revoke article 50
Swinson's track record
Swinson herself
It was blindingly obvious they were done for. Nothing to do with the system, the same system btw in which the held over 50 seats now.....8?
Last time I tried to band mouth?? Oh you mean lies she told and her bad track record where the evidence was posted for all to see. Why can't you see what's directly in front of you? Why do you consistently try and defend a women who is guilty of causing harm to huge numbers of the general public?
You are the one making slanderous remarks against myself. The evidence was posted, you can't accept it. I now invite you to retract your slanderous statement that I've been "fibbing" when the pictorial and video evidence was clearly posted.
It's clear the nation didn't like what they had to say, and that's the part that matters....accept it.
Last edited:
scotrail158713
Established Member
And no other politician has ever assaulted anyone?
GrimShady
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2016
- Messages
- 1,740
Obviously not ScotRail. Two Jags used to make a point of it. The issue here is being leader and being involved in physical harm of her partner. It would not be tolerated if the roles were reversed.
nlogax
Established Member
All things being equal with badly behaved members and candidates - sadly this happens in nearly all parties - I suggest 'lost spectacularly' is hyperbole. Their real parliamentary nadir came at the 2015 election, returning 8 MPs. This time they managed to get 11 MPs even with the liability of Swinson in charge.. no mean achievement.
Now more than ever their problem is stagnation and a complete loss of political relevance. A handful of constituencies voted for them either as an exercise in nose-holding or to demonstrate opposition to Brexit. Now Brexit part 1 is almost done, all they have left is 'we're not Tory or Labour'. What do they stand for now? What's their point?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I wouldn't call increasing their national vote from 7.4% to 11.5% a pasting. They had a net loss of one seat but that's more to do with the electoral system.
TrafficEng
Member
For the LibDems doing that would be an admission of being a party of protest, rather than a party with the capacity to gain a majority and have their Leader become the next Prime Minister. Although you don't have to be an MP to be PM, to go into an election campaign on the basis your PM wouldn't be an MP simply isn't credible.
We all know that the LibDems are a party of protest and will never provide the country with the next PM, but there are those within the LibDems who firmly believe otherwise.
Ironic that the only time they've been credible is when they weren't a party of protest.
As for Clegg personally.... becoming a V-P for Facebook is possibly a price many of us would be willing to bear.
TrafficEng
Member
Given the LibDems got 22% in 2005 and 23% in 2010 (with exactly the same electoral system) it is difficult to see the 2019 result as anything other than a 'pasting' when:-
a) The LibDems were involved in election pacts with other Remain parties.
b) The LibDems were strongly involved in the promotion of tactical voting against the Conservatives (with a greater potential for Con->LibDem switches rather than Con->Lab)
c) The LibDems had a 'clear blue water' policy position on something that should (apparently) have appealed to circa 50% of the voting population.
d) The LibDems achieving 19.6% in the Euro elections, coming in second place.
e) In the context of the party starting the campaign with a focus on their ambition of finishing as the largest party and having their party leader as the next PM.
underbank
Established Member
All that means is that they had an even worse leader/policies last time.
Butts
Veteran Member
Your obviously not old enough to remember when they only had 6 MP'S - jokes about meetings in a phone box and all getting in one taxi to get to Westminster !!!
nlogax
Established Member
Am old enough to remember that, but going from effectively being half of government to a mere 8 MPs must have felt like a falling off a parliamentary cliff.
Gosh, you really do have quite a vendetta against the LibDems don't you! What happened? Did a past girlfriend or boyfriend run off with a member of the LibDems or something?
More seriously, do you really think it would be a good idea for the only two large political parties across the UK be a Conservative Party that has moved further and further to the right, and a Labour Party that has moved further and further to the left, leaving nothing for people in the political centre to vote for?
This take is popular, understandably so with LibDems but it's patently not true. The current Tory party is not far right. It's more liberal than it has been in decades. Likewise, Labour is not far left, and not "Marxist."
The LibDems increasingly look like the authoritarian, reactionary party.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
It's not the LibDems that are threatening to re-write the constitution to prevent the supreme court intervening in prorogation, so the government can effectively close down Parliament any time it wants. Or to submit the judiciary to political scrutiny, resulting in a partisan system like in the US. These may not happen, but the vague words in the Tory manifesto arguably give them a mandate to do that.
Then there is Brexit, where the Tory party is likely to destroy our links with our major trading partners and remove the checks and balances of the EU that seeks to keep the member states to democratic norms. There is no justification for Brexit except to indulge a populist fantasy or if someone intends the to dismantle democratic, employment and environmental protections in the UK.
I don't think it's the LibDemss who are authoritarian and reactionary here.
TrafficEng
Member
It remains to be see what the Government proposes, but if the constitution is clarified by new legislation then it will be as a result of a decision by our sovereign Parliament. I thought that was what all the fuss was about in the first place? It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for Parliament to clarify the rules on prorogation of itself, in order that there is no place for judicial intervention in the future.
If the new rules were sufficiently lax that a future government would be able to prorogue Parliament inappropriately then the right way of dealing with that is to allow the electorate to have their say on the probity of that government through the ballot box - something that is far more democratic than a group of self-selecting lawyers making decisions instead.
I would put forward the suggestion that this is precisely what happened with the recent election - the probity of the Government (including matters such as the prorogation) was put to the test at the ballot box and the electorate cast their votes. In my personal view, the intervention that culminated in the Supreme Court ruling contributed to the success of the Conservative party in the election. And for that I will be ever grateful to Joanna Cherry and Co.
There are some within the legal profession who feel their colleagues are dangerously entering into political territory where it is unwise for them to be going. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me for the Government to 'put a shot across the bows' of the judiciary to the effect that if they want to be political animals then they need to be subject to some form of political process in their selection. However, it would be better for there not to be political scrutiny and for the judiciary to take a clear step back from politics.
I'm tempted to suggest 'will of the people', but anticipate this will be categorised as "populist fantasy".
It's also not a former leader of the Liberal Democrats who says that they know better than eleven Justices of the Supreme Court what Article 9 of the Bill of Rights actually means in practice. Oh wait - it's not just Michael Howard who thinks they know better and wants to blame someone else for their problem, but the actual Prime Minister too!
This is a fiction, and it's a fiction which it suits Labour and the Conservatives to perpetuate.
Except for, at the very minimum 3,696,419, people who would say you're talking nonsense? Oh and you can add me to that too so that's at least 3,696,420. :PIt would seem the country also shares my view
I suspect that Labour would not be willing to consider this approach? Very, very unlikely unless they basically take all of the Labour positions, like the Labour & Co-operative candidates.
TrafficEng
Member
Even then it isn't really in Labour's interests to get rid of FPTP. It served them well between 1997 and 2010 and represents their best chance of again forming a majority government. (if only they can sort out their leadership issues).
FPTP also acts as a glue to keep the disparate elements of the Labour party together. Being able to agree a set of policies that joins Big City Labour to Old Industrial Labour - with the aim of winning power under FPTP - is the thing that keeps the party whole. Under PR either of those Labour factions might fancy their chances of winning power in coalition with someone else. Which may lead to fragmentation of the party and the formation of alliances and new policy positions better suited to the members of each fragment.
Which returns us to the thread topic. As has been said already, the longer-term future of the LibDems probably lies with joining a centrist fragment of Labour.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
None of which is actually relevant to my post that you quoted, which was in response to a suggestion that the LibDems were reactionary and authoritarian. The question of whether those measures are democratic and legitimate is entirely separate from whether they are reactionary and authoritarian.
- Status