NationStates Jolt Archive


Question for Brits

Lenbonia
16-09-2004, 02:33
I'm involved in a discussion board debate in one of my classes, and someone said this:

>Sure, the Third Parties are a minority of the House of Commons, but they are still significant. Having third parties forces the other parties to form coalition governments. In the 1975 election, the people were disenfranchised and voted for the Liberal Democrats en mass. The major parties were forced to compromise with them to pass legislation (160). Without Third Parties, all of those voices would have gone unheard.<

The problem is, I can't seem to find anything on the net which corroborates this statement. I was hoping that one of you who is familiar with your nation's political history could tell me whether or not this happened, and how you interpret its meaning.
Lenbonia
16-09-2004, 03:01
bump
Globes R Us
16-09-2004, 03:07
Maybe this will help.

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/libdems/story/0,9061,491104,00.html
Cambridge Major
16-09-2004, 15:58
No, don't do it! Don't look at the Guardian! Loathsome, liberal paper!
Ecopoeia
16-09-2004, 16:03
No, don't do it! Don't look at the Guardian! Loathsome, liberal paper!
Mmm, I love the smell of well-meaning middle-class liberalism in the morning. Ahem. Essentially, the comment quoted in the opening post is correct in terms of the potential influence of the third party in the UK. I'm afraid I don't know of the specifics detailed though.
Bodies Without Organs
16-09-2004, 16:10
I'm involved in a discussion board debate in one of my classes, and someone said this:

>Sure, the Third Parties are a minority of the House of Commons, but they are still significant. Having third parties forces the other parties to form coalition governments. In the 1975 election, the people were disenfranchised and voted for the Liberal Democrats en mass. The major parties were forced to compromise with them to pass legislation (160). Without Third Parties, all of those voices would have gone unheard.<

The problem is, I can't seem to find anything on the net which corroborates this statement. I was hoping that one of you who is familiar with your nation's political history could tell me whether or not this happened, and how you interpret its meaning.

First of all - there was no UK general election in 1975.
Secondly - the Liberal Democrats didn't exist as a party, the Liberal Party did.
Thirdly - after the October 74 election the main parties were forced to curry favour with the Liberal Party (14 seats) as the breakdown of seats as neither the Conservatives (297 seats) nor the Labour Party (301 seats) had a sizeable majority. A coalition government was not formed, but the influence of the Liberal Party was significant on some issues where there was not unanimous support from the Conservative or Labour party members.


Hint for internet research: Wikipedia is a wonderful thing.
Renard
16-09-2004, 16:17
Mmm, I love the smell of well-meaning middle-class liberalism in the morning.
If only I could read the paper without practising the noble art of broadsheet origami.
Ecopoeia
16-09-2004, 16:19
If only I could read the paper without practising the noble art of broadsheet origami.
Head-butt the centre. Gets ink on your nose but generally works, plus releases any pent-up tension brought on by being in the presence of Daily Mail readers.
Renard
16-09-2004, 16:35
I'd rather nut the Daily Mail readers myself, I suppose if I pointed the paper in the right direction...
Strensall
16-09-2004, 17:12
Uh, the Daily Mail... I hate that paper. For the benefit of those of you who are lucky enough to never have read it, I've done you an example of what a general Daily Mail looks like:



Main article: "Arghh, arghh, asylum seekers! They're going to destroy EVERYTHING!!!11one, send them ALL home and put machine guns on the channel tunnel"

Next article: "Your gonna get raped by asylum seekers!!! We did a survey of all raped women, and they all blamed asylum seekers. In fact, 24% claim they got cancer from them too!! SEND THEM HOME"

Next article: "It appears some members of the BNP are in fact racists. Vote TORY!!!"
Strensall
16-09-2004, 17:13
Oh yeah, anyone seen this before: http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/other/dailymail.php
Unfree People
16-09-2004, 17:18
Oh yeah, anyone seen this before: http://www.qwghlm.co.uk/other/dailymail.php
Oh wow, heehee, that's brilliant. I only saw the Daily Mail once or twice but that was more than enough for me.
Ecopoeia
16-09-2004, 17:19
Heh, Mail-baiting. Beautiful.

"Nuclear war looms between India and Pakistan. We analyse how this will affect house prices."

Obsessed about house prices. It's very odd.
Pelliwink
16-09-2004, 17:46
The problem is, I can't seem to find anything on the net which corroborates this statement.
I'm not surprised! Bodies without Organs is right, none of it happened!
However, after the February 1974 elections which the tories lost, Heath didn't immediately resign, but tried to set up a coalition government with Jeremy Thorpe's Liberal Party. The negotiations failed and no deal was reached.
Also, there was the lib-lab pact in 1977 in which James Callaghan agreed to consult the Liberals on legislation prior to its presentation in Parliament. This wasn't a coaltion government, it was more an informal agreement.
Neutral Territories
16-09-2004, 17:51
My 'favourite' columnist for the Mail is Steve Doughty. Here's some of his previous headlines:

"Is this the end of marriage?" (26/11/03)
"Teens rely on morning after pill" (19/03/04)
"The cocaine generation" (05/12/03)
"Middle class = eternal youth" (05/12/03)
"Sickly immigrants add £1bn to NHS bill" (23/06/03)
"Teenage sex shock" (04/06/03)
"Why giving girls the Pill raises teen pregnancy" (05/03/02)
"Gays get the same rights" (09/06/03)
"Green light to smoke pot" (12/09/03)
"Britain gives up legal sovereignty over European treaty" (12/12/01)
"One in 20 is a migrant" (26/11/01)
"A broken home 'leads to under-age sex'" (23/07/01)
"UK tops league of teenage pregnancy" (08/03/01)

As you can imagine, each article is pretty much a tirade against...well, pretty much everything.