Why the lib-dems are shit

[JHE]

Dr Evan Harris. One of the only MPs I have a degree of genuine respect for.

There is at least one very good thing about Evan Harris. He is a principled secularist and member of the National Secular Society.

 

[Corax]

There is at least one very good thing about Evan Harris. He is a principled secularist and member of the National Secular Society.

He's also a massive advocate of evidence-based decision making. I like rational people.

 

[William of Walworth]

And I live in a constituency that is a finely balance Lib Dem/Tory marginal, so by voting Lib Dem I may actually help to deprive the Tories of a seat.

The above is the only circumstance in which I'd even consider voting Lib Dem ---I'd only think about it as a specifically anti Tory, strictly tactical move.

(I'd probably vote for Evan Harris too if I was in Oxford West, but mainly to avoid the risk of a Tory unseating him)

But in all other circumstances I wouldn't touch the Lib Dems with a bargepole. For most of the reasons already posted. Clegg's free market economics (the Orange Book stuff), his cuts mania and his antipathy to the TUs being the main ones.

Also, I dislike the Lib Dem council here in Swansea, they're in coalition with a few Tory councillors who are deeply reactionary, the long serving and obnoxious Richard Lewis being one (imminent Mayor and old time Thatcherite for the last 20 years, so debbie tells me).

 

[glenquagmire]

In reality probably under 30% of the UK electorate are actual Tory supporters and a reformed House of Commons could consign them to the margin where they belong, and thus free us from the need to tactically vote at nearly every election in order to keep them out.

Or, indeed, should a decent socialist movement emerge within the Labour Party or in place of it, we'd be guaranteed a permanent anti-working class, anti-trade union, free market 'national government' of Tories and Liberals determined to keep it out of power.

 

[JHE]

Or, indeed, should a decent socialist movement emerge within the Labour Party or in place of it, we'd be guaranteed a permanent anti-working class, anti-trade union, free market 'national government' of Tories and Liberals determined to keep it out of power.

To stand any chance of achieving socialism, the socialist movement (a largely imaginary beast at the moment) would need at least a majority of the population to support its programme. Arthur Scargill (before he joined the Labour Party, while in the Labour Party and after he left to found his sect) and others have been making this point for decades.

Perhaps you imagine you can get a left-wing Labour government elected on 40% of the vote and craftily transform society on the basis of a majority in the (poorly elected) House of Commons. If that is your plan or you have any other plan to introduce socialism undemocratically, you are a silly sausage.

A decent electoral system would allow a serious socialist party to have some representation in parliament, in proportion to its vote.

 

[ymu]

The above is the only circumstance in which I'd even consider voting Lib Dem ---I'd only think about it as a specifically anti Tory, strictly tactical move.

(I'd probably vote for Evan Harris too if I was in Oxford West, but mainly to avoid the risk of a Tory unseating him)

But in all other circumstances I wouldn't touch the Lib Dems with a bargepole. For most of the reasons already posted. Clegg's free market economics (the Orange Book stuff), his cuts mania and his antipathy to the TUs being the main ones.

Also, I dislike the Lib Dem council here in Swansea, they're in coalition with a few Tory councillors who are deeply reactionary, the long serving and obnoxious Richard Lewis being one (imminent Mayor and old time Thatcherite for the last 20 years, so debbie tells me).

Evan Harris is my MP. He was 15% ahead of the Tory last time. No chance of his being unseated.

 

[glenquagmire]

To stand any chance of achieving socialism, the socialist movement (a largely imaginary beast at the moment) would need at least a majority of the population to support its programme. Arthur Scargill (before he joined the Labour Party, while in the Labour Party and after he left to found his sect) and others have been making this point for decades.

Yes, thanks, I know. Personally I couldn't care much either way about FPTP v PR, for that very reason.

A decent electoral system would allow a serious socialist party to have some representation in parliament, in proportion to its vote.

Which gains us what, if its vote is less than 50%?

At the moment we probably have about 5% of Parliament are decent 'serious socialists'. What percentage do you think a 'serious socialist party' should be getting at the moment if there was such a thing in existence?

 

[Corax]

Evan Harris is my MP. He was 15% ahead of the Tory last time. No chance of his being unseated.

Good. He's got libel reform in his sights and he's not going to let it drop.

 

[TAE]

We can make the case for political reform until the cows come home. What really counts now is the political clout delivered by actually electing MPs who support it.

That is true, of course.

 

[JHE]

At the moment we probably have about 5% of Parliament are decent 'serious socialists'. What percentage do you think a 'serious socialist party' should be getting at the moment?

Just a guess: about 5%!

One obstacle to getting even that is that the chances of the various factions, fragments, cults, oddballs, cranks and worse coming together to form a serious party are very low. The chances of some of them trying it might be improved if there were a proportional electoral system, though.

 

[Corax]

Just a guess: about 5%!

One obstacle to getting even that is that the chances of the various factions, fragments, cults, oddballs, cranks and worse coming together to form a serious party are very low. The chances of some of them trying it might be improved if there were a proportional electoral system, though.

Big obstacle. Even the infighting between various shades of the left on here is jaw-dropping, let alone meatspace.

 

[Corax]

Interesting article from YouGov:

http://www.today.yougov.co.uk/commentaries/peter-kellner/could-lib-dems-win-outright

One snippet:

One reason why the Lib Dems could, just possibly, achieve this is revealed by YouGov’s latest daily poll. We asked: “How would you vote on May 6 if you thought the Liberal Democrats had a significant chance of winning the election”. The responses: Lib Dem 49%, Conservative 25%, Labour 19%. On the – admittedly unrealistic – assumption of uniform national swing, there would be 548 Lib Dem MPs, 41 Labour MPs and just 25 Tories.

 

[kyser_soze]

In answer to the OP:

Cos their logo thingy used to look like those 'Baby On Board' things you used to see in the rear windows of cars (and maybe still does)

Because I always associate yellow with piss-stained pants.

 

[glenquagmire]

Just a guess: about 5%!

One obstacle to getting even that is that the chances of the various factions, fragments, cults, oddballs, cranks and worse coming together to form a serious party are very low. The chances of some of them trying it might be improved if there were a proportional electoral system, though.

So what's the difference between (a) having 5% of Parliament as decent Labour MPs voting along socialist lines, and (b) having 5% of Parliament as decent 'New Socialist Party' MPs voting along socialist lines?

Aside from the fact that, under the most promising conditions in some time, the non-Labour left has failed to achieve anything approaching option B.

 

[Wolfie Smith]

So what's the difference between (a) having 5% of Parliament as decent Labour MPs voting along socialist lines, and (b) having 5% of Parliament as decent 'New Socialist Party' MPs voting along socialist lines?

Aside from the fact that, under the most promising conditions in some time, the non-Labour left has failed to achieve anything approaching option B.

If they are in the Labour party I doubt they'd do all that much voting along Socialist lines.

 

[glenquagmire]

If they are in the Labour party I doubt they'd do all that much voting along Socialist lines.

They do at the moment. That's the point.

 

[William of Walworth]

Evan Harris is my MP. He was 15% ahead of the Tory last time. No chance of his being unseated.

Good. Didn't know the Tory threat had retreated so much.

But as it goes he's one of the very few LDs I might actually positively vote for in fact, probably the only one. But as I don't live in Oxford it was just an idle thought exercise.

 

[butchersapron]

Thats very condescending of british voters. if voters didnt like the message and the policy they wouldnt show support for them. its not just because they're not the other two. polices are distinct, as is the voting record.

You've got the wrong end of the stick here.

 

[gosub]

How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
Party lists and party power surely.

 

[Wolveryeti]

How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
Party lists and party power surely.

Specify open list as the variant of PR that you want, then. If you are really worried about the prospect corrupt politicians, introduce a new law that says that a by-election for that seat must be called if a defined percentage of voters in that borough sign a petition of no-confidence or something.

Of course you will never be able to totally get rid of party power, but a good restriction on it is the fact that individuals with good ideas will in theory be able to set up alternative parties with a realistic chance of election.

 

[Quartz]

How under PR do an electorate get to remove a corrupt politican?
Party lists and party power surely.

Use Approval voting. Party lists are bad.

 

[butchersapron]

A few more reasons why the lib-dems are shit. Nick Clegg was in the Federation of Conservative Students whilst at Cambridge at a time when they were notorious for their Hang Mandela posters and far-right polices (following a long long record of support for Mosely, Enoch and other hard-right figures).

He was also drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay C Hitchen's fag at The Nation.

 

[trevhagl]

A few more reasons why the lib-dems are shit. Nick Clegg was in the Federation of Conservative Students whilst at Cambridge at a time when they were notorious for their Hang Mandela posters and far-right polices (following a long long record of support for Mosely, Enoch and other hard-right figures).

He was also drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay C Hitchen's fag at The Nation.

funnily enough if i didn't know who he was and saw a pic of him thats exactly what i woulda thought. What a wanker.

 

[Santino]

He's also a Russian aristocrat using his popularity to plan his revenge on the workers who denied him of his birthright.

 

[Corax]

Probably a closet homo too.

 

[Citizen66]

the worst, absolutely worst thing about the Lib Dems, is that people think it's radical to vote for them.

This

Because they're cunts.

and this.

 

[JHE]

So what's the difference between (a) having 5% of Parliament as decent Labour MPs voting along socialist lines, and (b) having 5% of Parliament as decent 'New Socialist Party' MPs voting along socialist lines?

Aside from the fact that, under the most promising conditions in some time, the non-Labour left has failed to achieve anything approaching option B.

Try to set aside your dreary notion that the issue of electoral reform should be decided on the basis of whether or not it offers an immediate advantage to the remnants of the Labour left.

Instead, ask yourself: Does democracy matter? Is it a central feature of the sort of society I want? Is proportionality important to a supposedly democratic system? For me, the answer to those questions is YES!

What's more, if socialists got their act together and managed to form a party with a feasible account of a desirable socialist future (a crucial, but currently missing and difficult, factor in any socialist movement deserving the name) and were willing to take electoral politics seriously, a proportional electoral system would be more useful to it than the current crappy disproportional system. At the moment, a party can have significant support but no parliamentary presence (Greens, UKIP, for example). On the other hand, a party can have much less than half the vote and yet have a majority in the House of Commons (currently the Labour Party, but I guess you remember 1979-1997 too). A socialist party in parliament could act on principle and have a distinct message to put to the electorate, instead of being a half-forgotten semi-loyal appendage to the (now plainly non-socialist) Labour Party. It could grow or not, depending on how persuasive it was.

 

[butchersapron]

And also for fighting against free school meals for all under 11s in Islington.

 

[sihhi]

A few more reasons why the lib-dems are shit. Nick Clegg was in the Federation of Conservative Students whilst at Cambridge at a time when they were notorious for their Hang Mandela posters and far-right polices (following a long long record of support for Mosely, Enoch and other hard-right figures).

He was also drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay C Hitchen's fag at The Nation.

He also fagged (is that the right word?) Louis Theroux whilst at Westminster school as a boarder fees today £29,000 annually.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ele...-he-was-Nick-Cleggs-fag-at-public-school.html

 

[sleaterkinney]

Another reason:

There are claims of records showing he joined the Young Conservatives at university. Clegg says: " know there are [those claims] but I was very, very, leftwing. I was very influenced by Marxist thinkers."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/20/nick-clegg-profile-early-days