Lib Dems - Page 2 - Anything Goes - Other topics not covered elsewhere - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In reality Lib Dems have sacrificed a lot to be in government.

For me, they have still to take the full electoral hit for doing what they did. If they get a drubbing at the General Election (not a foregone conclusion), then we can assess what sort of sacrifice they actually took.

I thought one of the reasons they went into coalition was to secure a once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity of a PR referendum (remember that?). Something so core to Lib Dem principles that it was worth doing a one-off deal with the Tories to secure - they could never have got that without a coalition deal. When they failed get PR, maybe they should have pulled out the Coalition, as they served no further purpose. The Tories could have run a minority government and Lib Dems voted with them only when they met their principles.

Ditching the fees pledge, and clinging to power even though the PR referendum had been fought and lost, suggests they were only interested in power.

Without them acting as restraint to some of the tory right wingers I think we would be in a worse place.

Surely the best form of restraint against a tory right wing agenda would be had the Lib Dems not gone into coalition, and the Tories would need to pursue a moderate minority govt agenda?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me, they have still to take the full electoral hit for doing what they did. If they get a drubbing at the General Election (not a foregone conclusion), then we can assess what sort of sacrifice they actually took.

I thought one of the reasons they went into coalition was to secure a once-in-a-political-lifetime opportunity of a PR referendum (remember that?). Something so core to Lib Dem principles that it was worth doing a one-off deal with the Tories to secure - they could never have got that without a coalition deal. When they failed get PR, maybe they should have pulled out the Coalition, as they served no further purpose. The Tories could have run a minority government and Lib Dems voted with them only when they met their principles.

Ditching the fees pledge, and clinging to power even though the PR referendum had been fought and lost, suggests they were only interested in power.

Surely the best form of restraint against a tory right wing agenda would be had the Lib Dems not gone into coalition, and the Tories would need to pursue a moderate minority govt agenda?

I think they were also trying to show that coalition governments can work, to normalise them in the eyes of the public. In which they've (sort of) succeeded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they were also trying to show that coalition governments can work, to normalise them in the eyes of the public. In which they've (sort of) succeeded.

Yes, the huge number of Lib Dem policies we've seen are a testament to that.

They've essentially given the Tory bastards a majority in this parliament, something which the electorate refused to grant them at the ballot box, and for that they should be (figuratively) shot at dawn.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the huge number of Lib Dem policies we've seen are a testament to that.

They've essentially given the Tory bastards a majority in this parliament, something which the electorate refused to grant them at the ballot box, and for that they should be (figuratively) shot at dawn.

I meant more in terms of showing that two parties can form a government that functions at least as well as a one-party government. Though indeed they've got very little out of it, policy-wise. I'd still rather have a coalition government (of most stripes) than a single-party Labour or Tory government ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're a shower of opportunistic odd balls that change their policy position anywhere it suits them. Getting into govt's a life dream for their huge egos. Annoying thing is that in close elections they now think the default option is to be coalition partners. The party that can't be removed from power?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I meant more in terms of showing that two parties can form a government that functions at least as well as a one-party government. Though indeed they've got very little out of it, policy-wise. I'd still rather have a coalition government (of most stripes) than a single-party Labour or Tory government ever again.

Aye, fair enough.

I never like to miss an opportunity to point out what they've done though!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much longer will the LibDems be included in "the 3 main parties" line? They are soon to become even more of a political irrelevance.

They've already got less members than the SNP, and there's a chance in a few months that they'll have less MPs than them too.

If that happens it'd be difficult to justify that platform on a continuing basis...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lib Dems cheering at the Heywood & Middleton by-election, presumably as they saved their deposit.

Even 5 years ago, it could have been the Lib Dems running the incumbent close with 10k votes - now they cheer to get over a thousand as they come a distant fourth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...


×
×
  • Create New...