NationStates Jolt Archive

Charles Kennedy leader of the Liberal Democrats in two general election resigned yesterday after admitting to seeking professional help for a drink problem. David Cameron took control of the Conservative party recently launching an appeal for Liberal Conservatism (I know to an American thats a contradiction but he's using the Europian use of the word liberal) and this proved a cataylst to spark off questions over kennedy's leadership (which definition of the word liberal is intended in the Party's name seems to vary on who you speak to). Would old Kennedy stand up to new Cameron? Kennedy then called a press conference where he was expected to say he was still able to lead the party which he did, but also admitted to an alcohol problem somthing which he had vehmently denied. e then opened a leadership ballot to the party membership but has since stood down. Thing is who will replace him?

Who would be likely candidates, and what are their general views on issues important to the UK?

(I'm replying to this, but I'm drunk and may get up and leave at any minute, so I apologise in advance if anyone responds to me and I fail to reply!)

I think that it's a bit sad that Charlie had to go. My impression is that, well, a lot of the Lib Dem front benchers who turned against him obviously knew before-hand that he had a drink problem... the thing is, they only turned on him when he chose to admit it in public. What does that say about them (some of his potential replacements)? That they wouldn't admit to it if they had a problem? In a democracy, it's okay to have problems so long as you don't admit to them?

I don't know. My initial thought is, well, Ming. If Ming can't be party leader, what's the point of having someone called Ming in the party, eh? EH?

[Actually, I think that party democracy is a fricking joke, and should be abolished, so maybe my opinions don't carry too much weight, I dunno]

I'm supporting Menzies (Ming) Campbell. I know people will say he's too old, but it's only recently that we've become obsessed with parties having young leaders, and I think he's the best person for the job.

ming campbell. he is an extremely well respected, principled, experienced politician.

Sir Menzies will probably get the leadership, but I think it should be Simon Hughes. His more liberal views would gather more support for the Lib Dems before the next election, rather than Campbell's old-style liberalism. He obviously has a lot of support - he came second to Kennedy in the leadership race in 1999, and is the president of the Lib Dems.
The only advantage I can see Campbell having is that he stands between what are effectively the two halves of the LD party, so he may be able to gain support from both halves.

The Lib Dems are making a huge mistake. In Britain, a drunkard would be elected with an overwhelming majority.

I miss Kennedy. :(

Well I heard one of the Lib Dem MPs who decided to stab him in the back say
"This is good because we are now in a position of strenght, which means, unlike the tories that we can only get stronger. Their party was unpopular etc when they were forced to change leader."
And so... why are they getting rid of the man who put them in this position of strength? I can't stand Kennedy, but I can't see why they've done this. It isn't very bright.. they've lost the only member of their party that the majority of the country have heard of. And who can replace him. Menzies Campbell? He's more toryish than most of the conservative party.
Bah!

Hi im a member of the conservative party. i think that the leadership election is not just due to the drink issues, but that they need a new leader to change the party image, because of david cameron's popularity. Actual, David Cameron described his policies as "compassionate conservatism" and not "liberal conservatism" as was described above.

Well I heard one of the Lib Dem MPs who decided to stab him in the back say
"This is good because we are now in a position of strenght, which means, unlike the tories that we can only get stronger. Their party was unpopular etc when they were forced to change leader."
And so... why are they getting rid of the man who put them in this position of strength? I can't stand Kennedy, but I can't see why they've done this. It isn't very bright.. they've lost the only member of their party that the majority of the country have heard of. And who can replace him. Menzies Campbell? He's more toryish than most of the conservative party.
Bah!

Whats wrong with being tory?

Whats wrong with being tory?

Everything.

Me. Seriously, the Lib Dems are a really confused party right now.

Limiting my choice to actual Lib Dem MPS, I'd quite like Nicholas Clegg or maybe Mark Oaten to have a shot at it but Menzies will probably get the nod. He's popular, experienced and is acting as the interim leader of the party until the leadership election.

I'm not surprised Charles has gone. Even before Christmas a number of MPs were telling him to go.

Everything.

*Concurs*

Whats wrong with being tory?

Well, darn near everything, however in the context of this thread, nothing particularly... except that we're talking about the Liberal Democrats, and being Tory means that one ought to be in the, ah, Tory party, not the Lib Dems. So... yeah... that.

I support Edward Davey for leader

Hi im a member of the conservative party. i think that the leadership election is not just due to the drink issues, but that they need a new leader to change the party image, because of david cameron's popularity. Actual, David Cameron described his policies as "compassionate conservatism" and not "liberal conservatism" as was described above.
They don't need to change the party's image. Unless a successful party that managed to considerably increase their number of MPs at the last election is a poor image.
I think the reason they wanted a new leader was that Kennedy seemed to have lost his momentum from the election. 62 seats won at the 2005 election (an increase of 10 from 2001, and of 16 since Kennedy became leader), and 22% of the vote (the highest the Lib Dems have ever recorded), should have put Kennedy and his party in a position to truly challenge both the Conservatives and Labour at the next election.
Instead, there has been too much in-fighting within the party, weakening its position, and probably leading to a loss of support among the electorate. Key figures in the party obviously realised that this must be stopped, and the only way in which it was going to be stopped was for Kennedy to step down as leader.

personally i hope Mathew Taylor stands - former treasury spokesman and former chair of the parliamentary party...

but all the infighting in the party recently doesn't bode well - the lib dems have tarnished their credibility to the electorate!

may have to be back to the Mebyon Kernow party for m!

Whats wrong with being tory?

Nothing... I'm a party member. I just think Menzies Campbell is a hypocrite. And that from the point of view of Lib Dem voters, probably the wrong person to lead their party.

They don't need to change the party's image. Unless a successful party that managed to considerably increase their number of MPs at the last election is a poor image.
I think the reason they wanted a new leader was that Kennedy seemed to have lost his momentum from the election. 62 seats won at the 2005 election (an increase of 10 from 2001, and of 16 since Kennedy became leader), and 22% of the vote (the highest the Lib Dems have ever recorded), should have put Kennedy and his party in a position to truly challenge both the Conservatives and Labour at the next election.
Instead, there has been too much in-fighting within the party, weakening its position, and probably leading to a loss of support among the electorate. Key figures in the party obviously realised that this must be stopped, and the only way in which it was going to be stopped was for Kennedy to step down as leader.

Well... I would agree. I see no reason for Cameron's reforms. I'm actually all for equality, but I don't think it's necessary to set a quota that half of all tory candidates should be famale or from ethnic minorities. Let's face it... the majority of tory voters are white, grumpy middle-class, and middle-aged. If his reforms continue, he risks alienating his existing members to make questionable gains. How many people who are gay or feminists and or from ethnic minorities are really going to ever support the tories anyway? Very few who do not already, I would say. For many of the groups that Citizen Dave is trying to attract, the Tories have a negative image and will probably never be the flavour of the month....there's just too much associated with the party name.

Let's face it... the majority of tory voters are white, grumpy middle-class, and middle-aged.
It's so true! The cast-iron way I'll know I'm turning into my parents is when I start to vote Tory. Hopefully it'll never happen.

Menzies is the new lib dem leader and somebody earlier said they only turned on him after he admitted the drink problem, thats not true, they've been arguing and wanting him out for a while now

It's so true! The cast-iron way I'll know I'm turning into my parents is when I start to vote Tory. Hopefully it'll never happen.

Sometimes I look in the mirror and Victor Meldrew is staring back at me...

Sometimes I look in the mirror and Victor Meldrew is staring back at me...
You sure it's not a window? :p

Menzies is the new lib dem leader and somebody earlier said they only turned on him after he admitted the drink problem, thats not true, they've been arguing and wanting him out for a while now
Sir Menzies Campbell is only the acting leader. They'll have a proper contest (hopefully involving duels) soon.

Well... I would agree. I see no reason for Cameron's reforms. I'm actually all for equality, but I don't think it's necessary to set a quota that half of all tory candidates should be famale or from ethnic minorities. Let's face it... the majority of tory voters are white, grumpy middle-class, and middle-aged. If his reforms continue, he risks alienating his existing members to make questionable gains. How many people who are gay or feminists and or from ethnic minorities are really going to ever support the tories anyway? Very few who do not already, I would say. For many of the groups that Citizen Dave is trying to attract, the Tories have a negative image and will probably never be the flavour of the month....there's just too much associated with the party name.

All the better to change your party's position and name good and early before the next election, then - maybe by the time of the next election, people will be able to vote tory without feeling as though they have to wash their hands after!

I _like_ Charles Kennedy, and I'm sorry this has happened to him. His alcoholism is incidental to his political problems, though; his party and his MPs (like all politicians, I might add) were prepared to put up with any vice an ally might have as long as they were able to deliver power.

His problem is his political strategy. Ashdown's idea was to form a coalition with New Labour - when this strategy failed, Ashdown went. Kennedy's idea was be nice, be the decent party, and pick up votes from disaffected tory _and_ Labour voters, as well as the traditional wings of liberal and social democratic voters. But that's a short to medium term strategy, and it won't turn a 'conscience' or 'protest' party, a party of ideas, into a proper Opposition/Potential Government party; if the Lib Dems want to keep and consolidate their position, they need to have a distinct, coherent image and policies, not their current factionalised, 'offcuts and outcasts' supporters.

As soon as the original causes fix themselves up (as, for example, the tories under cameron and labour under brown might do), the 'rebels' who defected to the lib dems might very easily go back to voting for their original preferences; that's the great lib dem fear, and it's a problem that Kennedy's astute opportunism didn't have an answer for.

You sure it's not a window? :p

Could be... I wodnered where that red volvo was coming from. We don't have one of those in the bathroom.

And while we're talking about politics, well we were originally..., what happened to the NS General Parliament? That never seemed to take shape.

Elgesh']All the better to change your party's position and name good and early before the next election, then - maybe by the time of the next election, people will be able to vote tory without feeling as though they have to wash their hands after!

I _like_ Charles Kennedy, and I'm sorry this has happened to him. His alcoholism is incidental to his political problems, though; his party and his MPs (like all politicians, I might add) were prepared to put up with any vice an ally might have as long as they were able to deliver power.

His problem is his political strategy. Ashdown's idea was to form a coalition with New Labour - when this strategy failed, Ashdown went. Kennedy's idea was be nice, be the decent party, and pick up votes from disaffected tory _and_ Labour voters, as well as the traditional wings of liberal and social democratic voters. But that's a short to medium term strategy, and it won't turn a 'conscience' or 'protest' party, a party of ideas, into a proper Opposition/Potential Government party; if the Lib Dems want to keep and consolidate their position, they need to have a distinct, coherent image and policies, not their current factionalised, 'offcuts and outcasts' supporters.

As soon as the original causes fix themselves up (as, for example, the tories under cameron and labour under brown might do), the 'rebels' who defected to the lib dems might very easily go back to voting for their original preferences; that's the great lib dem fear, and it's a problem that Kennedy's astute opportunism didn't have an answer for.


I dunno. Kennedy's policies didn't turn the Lib Dems into the "nice, decent party." They steered further left of Labour and into dangerous territory. The Lib Dems used to hold the centre ground and now they've filed the void that Labour used to occupy. They won a lot of credit for opposing the war, which the tories should also have done, but they've become a more left-wing and more radical party, which has won them the support of old lefties, but not of the mainstream. The majority of people do not have strong opinions on these matters. In a country where only 60% of the electorate turns out to vote, all the other parties are assuming the centre. This is wrong in my opinion, as it makes the whole process stale and boring, while also compromising on the integrity of party beliefs. The Lib Dems have done the right thing to move left for the political process as a whole, but I doubt it will win them the support they desire. Their problem now is that there are several parties within one.
You've got the old Liberals, descended from the Liberal Party, like Ming Campbell. They you;ve got the firebrand lefties. The party needs to look at itself and decide what it is. It would have trouble squeezing back into the centre ground, however, as there isn't a lot of room left.

I dunno. Kennedy's policies didn't turn the Lib Dems into the "nice, decent party." .Their problem now is that there are several parties within one.
You've got the old Liberals, descended from the Liberal Party, like Ming Campbell. They you;ve got the firebrand lefties. The party needs to look at itself and decide what it is. It would have trouble squeezing back into the centre ground, however, as there isn't a lot of room left.

Underlined is something I totally agree with, and is the main thrust of my concerns over the lib dem's long term health.

I would say that moving to the left was an act of seeming to be the nice, decent party, compared with the 'approach the centre from the right' new labour and conservatives political philosophy, but my point doesn't hinge on it, exactly :) Rather, I'd say that in trying to be all things to all men to draw people into the party, supporters see too much to disagree with _within_ their party rather than _between_ parties.

frankly i think the entire situation is stupid. Kennedy did a good job these last few years as leader, pushing the lib dems up to their highest successes in parliament and their most widespread popular recognition with voters, and all this while suffering from an alcohol problem. now that he's "clean" (or sober), i would bet that he could do an even better job.

the fact that his frontbenchers conspired to make his position untenable was the stupid thing imo... especially considering the overwhelming support Kennedy received from the party members and populous - seperating party MPs from its members (and the voters) is a really dumb thing to do. i think those frontbenchers might find their own positions untenable soon...


plus there's the issue of psychology: people in general liked him, as a politician, and also voters connect him and the lib dems instantly. with labour about to see a new face (Brown) and the Tories having a new leader already, i think some thought should have been given to that previous point: recognition and providence. ok, Brown has some recognition too, but nonetheless this could have stood the lib dems in favour in a 'new' political area.



as for who to replace him? that lib dem MP who's last name begins with an 'O'... always forget his name but he's one smart cookie and really knows how to work the media (saw him being interviewed regarding this Kennedy business)

Elgesh']Underlined is something I totally agree with, and is the main thrust of my concerns over the lib dem's long term health.

I would say that moving to the left was an act of seeming to be the nice, decent party, compared with the 'approach the centre from the right' new labour and conservatives political philosophy, but my point doesn't hinge on it, exactly :) Rather, I'd say that in trying to be all things to all men to draw people into the party, supporters see too much to disagree with _within_ their party rather than _between_ parties.

True... however moving to the left is not "seeming to be the nice, decent party" in my opinion. It's turned the Lib Dems into an aggressive and vocal party. Most students support the Lib Dems now... so that proves it really. Blair is a past master of trying to be everybody's friend. He did that by stealing tory policies, but it didnt last.
I think parties have a clear problem. Fewer people are voting than ever and no side has enough supporters available who agree with the black and white ideology of their party, and so at the risk of upsetting their members, they have to adopt policies (or in the tories' case, leaders) that don't embody what they believe.
David Cameron, in my view, is not a conservative at all...

frankly i think the entire situation is stupid. Kennedy did a good job these last few years as leader, pushing the lib dems up to their highest successes in parliament and their most widespread popular recognition with voters, and all this while suffering from an alcohol problem. now that he's "clean" (or sober), i would bet that he could do an even better job.

the fact that his frontbenchers conspired to make his position untenable was the stupid thing imo... especially considering the overwhelming support Kennedy received from the party members and populous - seperating party MPs from its members (and the voters) is a really dumb thing to do. i think those frontbenchers might find their own positions untenable soon...


plus there's the issue of psychology: people in general liked him, as a politician, and also voters connect him and the lib dems instantly. with labour about to see a new face (Brown) and the Tories having a new leader already, i think some thought should have been given to that previous point: recognition and providence. ok, Brown has some recognition too, but nonetheless this could have stood the lib dems in favour in a 'new' political area.



as for who to replace him? that lib dem MP who's last name begins with an 'O'... always forget his name but he's one smart cookie and really knows how to work the media (saw him being interviewed regarding this Kennedy business)


Lembik Optek or something, isn't it?

That's the other thing, name recognition. I know Charles Kennedy fine, Ming Campell by sight, Simon Hughes by name, and I know there's that bloke in the Scottish Parliament who's Lib Dem and the Deputy Lord High President of All Glorious Scotland, but I don't know his name.

If, as I think, the MPs were unhappy with the long term success of the party, the smart thing to do would have been to have a change of policy while keeping Charlie as the leader whom the public really quite liked. They've just used this problem, this policy problem, as an excuse to oust their leader to further their own political careers; in trying to getr a long term advantage, they've sacrificed their short to medium term strengths in the hope the next bloke'll be as good as Charles was at voter wooing.

Good luck, guy, you'll need it...:confused:

Elgesh']Lembik Optek or something, isn't it?


They've just used this problem, this policy problem, as an excuse to oust their leader to further their own political careers; in trying to getr a long term advantage, they've sacrificed their short to medium term strengths in the hope the next bloke'll be as good as Charles was at voter wooing.

thats the dude

and exactly - agreed - on that point :)
edit: its a crying shame cos i really did think the lib dems had a chance of becoming (at least) the official opposition in the next 10 to 15 years :(
we shall have to wait and see

Oh my god!! British politics!!!

That affects like.... several people!!

Oh my god!! British politics!!!

That affects like.... several people!!
60 million directly, the population of the EU indirectly, and the rest of the world at one remove; everything's interconnected now, and we're all required to have an opinion when, say, a Chavez et al make a move; this is no different, friend :)

frankly i think the entire situation is stupid. Kennedy did a good job these last few years as leader, pushing the lib dems up to their highest successes in parliament and their most widespread popular recognition with voters, and all this while suffering from an alcohol problem. now that he's "clean" (or sober), i would bet that he could do an even better job.

the fact that his frontbenchers conspired to make his position untenable was the stupid thing imo... especially considering the overwhelming support Kennedy received from the party members and populous - seperating party MPs from its members (and the voters) is a really dumb thing to do. i think those frontbenchers might find their own positions untenable soon...

plus there's the issue of psychology: people in general liked him, as a politician, and also voters connect him and the lib dems instantly. with labour about to see a new face (Brown) and the Tories having a new leader already, i think some thought should have been given to that previous point: recognition and providence. ok, Brown has some recognition too, but nonetheless this could have stood the lib dems in favour in a 'new' political area.

as for who to replace him? that lib dem MP who's last name begins with an 'O'... always forget his name but he's one smart cookie and really knows how to work the media (saw him being interviewed regarding this Kennedy business)

I would expect Campbell to take over, but not for long. I think this whole affair has probably led to some nastiness between Lib Dem MPs and Mark Oaten's visible support for Kennedy has taken him out of the race. Optek (is that his name?) seems to be a smart one. To my mind, that will probably count against him. Menzies Campbell, let's all note, did nothing to actually support his leader during that whole time, and he was one of the few people who could have used his influence to save Kennedy. I think Campbell will come out of this laughing. After all, the great unwashed public have never heard of the rest of the Lib Dem gang,

Oh my god!! British politics!!!

That affects like.... several people!!

Well... looks like he got deleted.
*score to Britain*

Could be... I wodnered where that red volvo was coming from. We don't have one of those in the bathroom.

And while we're talking about politics, well we were originally..., what happened to the NS General Parliament? That never seemed to take shape.
Erm...there was one motion that was talked about - puppet voting, but nothing really happened. It'll be time for more elections soon, they're every 6 months I think, so that'd make it March. Will the ESP be standing again?

Well... looks like he got deleted.
*score to Britain*

Nope. He's ZOMB13. Minus one for Britian.

as for who to replace him? that lib dem MP who's last name begins with an 'O'... always forget his name but he's one smart cookie and really knows how to work the media (saw him being interviewed regarding this Kennedy business)
Lembit Opik. Yeah, he's good with the media, but that doesn't necessarily make him a good politician.

Oh my god!! British politics!!!

That affects like.... several people!!
Oh my god! A troll! That affects like, no one!

Nope. He's ZOMB13. Minus one for Britian.

What? Damn it... can't we keep the point anyway? We've had a rough time...

Lembit Opik. Yeah, he's good with the media, but that doesn't necessarily make him a good politician.
i dunno... the face of today's politics is (near enough) soley concerned with the media and one's public portrayal. he's very good with the media (i have yet to see him come off badly in a debate or interview) and has a relatively high profile (with the public - maybe not necessarily in political circles) what with appearing on the news/interviews a lot and also many times on Question Time (and i'm sure other shows too, like Have I Got News For You...)

sufficed to say: i'd vote for him and not any of the other backstabbing bastards of the party...


http://www.liberator.org.uk/media/opik.jpg
thats the guy btw... looks like a nerd-supreme, but he's cool imo

i dunno... the face of today's politics is (near enough) soley concerned with the media and one's public portrayal. he's very good with the media (i have yet to see him come off badly in a debate or interview) and has a relatively high profile (with the public - maybe not necessarily in political circles) what with appearing on the news/interviews a lot and also many times on Question Time (and i'm sure other shows too, like Have I Got News For You...)

sufficed to say: i'd vote for him and not any of the other backstabbing bastards of the party...


http://www.liberator.org.uk/media/opik.jpg
thats the guy btw... looks like a nerd-supreme, but he's cool imo

But with those good looks, how will any other party stand a chance?

But with those good looks, how will any other party stand a chance?
LOL!

God love politicians, it's not easy for them...:p

Elgesh']LOL!

God love politicians, it's not easy for them...:p

I know... sometimes in my weaker moments, I almost pity them.

i dunno... the face of today's politics is (near enough) soley concerned with the media and one's public portrayal. he's very good with the media (i have yet to see him come off badly in a debate or interview) and has a relatively high profile (with the public - maybe not necessarily in political circles) what with appearing on the news/interviews a lot and also many times on Question Time (and i'm sure other shows too, like Have I Got News For You...)

sufficed to say: i'd vote for him and not any of the other backstabbing bastards of the party...

http://www.liberator.org.uk/media/opik.jpg
thats the guy btw... looks like a nerd-supreme, but he's cool imo
That's an awesome picture.
Yes, media manipulation is useful, but if your policies aren't up to scratch, not even a way with words will help you. Look at Blair. Media darling in the mid-'90s, but once his policies come under fire he's buggered. Hughes or Campbell seem to be the most promising candidates to lead the Lib Dems.

*Favor, plz*

Can anyone post a list of the candidates?

*Favor, plz*

Can anyone post a list of the candidates?
Sir Menzies Campbell - only one officially declared he'll be standing, I think
Simon Hughes
Mark Oaten
erm...
that's it, really
Maybe Lembit Opik.

That sounds about right...

That's an awesome picture.
Yes, media manipulation is useful, but if your policies aren't up to scratch, not even a way with words will help you. Look at Blair. Media darling in the mid-'90s, but once his policies come under fire he's buggered. Hughes or Campbell seem to be the most promising candidates to lead the Lib Dems.
yeah you're probably right :(
shame cos i really don't like any of the 'official' candidates (or official potential candidates... you know what i mean)

yeah you're probably right :(
shame cos i really don't like any of the 'official' candidates (or official potential candidates... you know what i mean)

Just out of interest PM, which party do you support, if any? I just wondered...

*slight bow* Thanks Stalin :)

So whos looking the best of the shitty candidates?

*slight bow* Thanks Stalin :)

So whos looking the best of the shitty candidates?

Sir Menzies Campbell. He's such a dish... *swoons*

Just out of interest PM, which party do you support, if any? I just wondered...
used to be labour, but they're so much like the tories nowadays...
would like to support lib dems, and was going to vote for em at the next election (actually, i did in the last one too) but this business has me worried and witholding my vote...

and i'd really like to vote green party, but it really is a wasted vote so i may as well vote as left as is practically possible (ie. lib dems... and its not just ideological - i like a lot of lib dem policies over labour's (and definatley over the tories))


any particular reason why you ask? (i ask out of curiosity)
and how about you?

Just out of interest PM, which party do you support, if any? I just wondered...
PM's a commie.

*slight bow* Thanks Stalin :)

So whos looking the best of the shitty candidates?
Ming will win it (that's Sir Menzies Campbell, by the way...not sure if he's merciless or not). Simon Hughes would be the best leader (IMO) and would take the part further left. Always a good thing.

and i'd really like to vote green party, but it really is a wasted vote so i may as well vote as left as is practically possible (ie. lib dems... and its not just ideological - i like a lot of lib dem policies over labour's (and definatley over the tories))
:eek: That was my exact train of thought at the last election!

Sir Menzies Campbell. He's such a dish... *swoons*
what? and Opik isn't? ;) :D

Ming will win it (that's Sir Menzies Campbell, by the way...not sure if he's merciless or not).

Hah. There's a Irish politician called Ming the Merciless. Pro-weed campaigner. Good guy.

Out of the possible candidates I think Simon Hughes is the best as he is on the left of the party and would try to prevent the shift towards neoliberal policies which people like Oaten would like to see. On the other hand if it is Oaten who becomes leader then maybe the LibDems would stop stealing the votes of the SSP and SNP and that would be a good thing for Scottish politics.

used to be labour, but they're so much like the tories nowadays...
would like to support lib dems, and was going to vote for em at the next election (actually, i did in the last one too) but this business has me worried and witholding my vote...

and i'd really like to vote green party, but it really is a wasted vote so i may as well vote as left as is practically possible (ie. lib dems... and its not just ideological - i like a lot of lib dem policies over labour's (and definatley over the tories))


any particular reason why you ask? (i ask out of curiosity)
and how about you?

I just wondered. I always knew you were pretty left-wing and quite "radical", well compared to me. You just seemed like one of those people who are very political.. hope you don't mind me saying that. I am too, which is why I wondered.
Personally, I was a tory, but I'm having a bit of an off period with them. I'm a centrist in the game, (see sig) but in reality im right of centre. To my shame, I read the Daily Mail.

used to be labour, but they're so much like the tories nowadays...
would like to support lib dems, and was going to vote for em at the next election (actually, i did in the last one too) but this business has me worried and witholding my vote...

and i'd really like to vote green party, but it really is a wasted vote so i may as well vote as left as is practically possible (ie. lib dems... and its not just ideological - i like a lot of lib dem policies over labour's (and definatley over the tories))
Exact the same with me. I would support Labour... if they were actually Labour and not the Tories in disguise. I would support Lib Dems... if they were actually truly left and not pretty much just as bad as the others. But they're the furthest left you're gonna get - who have any possible chance in elections - so... *shrugs* in conclusion, it's ultra fucked up.

PM's a commie.


ideologically, yes, but in the realm of practical/every-day politics, i just go as left as i can (ie: as left as is possible while still making the vote count... and i really thought the lib dems were in with a chance of counting...)

what? and Opik isn't? ;) :D

Maybe he could be... if he had a wash...

Exact the same with me. I would support Labour... if they were actually Labour and not the Tories in disguise. I would support Lib Dems... if they were actually truly left and not pretty much just as bad as the others. But they're the furthest left you're gonna get - who have any possible chance in elections - so... *shrugs* in conclusion, it's ultra fucked up.
yup... precisely what i think ( :fluffle: )
and your conclusion is too true ;)

To my shame, I read the Daily Mail.
There's still time to save you! We'll start by getting you onto the Torygraph, then, despite it meaning giving more money to that bastard Murdoch, onto the Times. Before you know it, you'll be reading the Morning Star!

There's still time to save you! We'll start by getting you onto the Torygraph, then, despite it meaning giving more money to that bastard Murdoch, onto the Times. Before you know it, you'll be reading the Morning Star!

No! Not that! Anything but the Morning Star!

I just wondered. I always knew you were pretty left-wing and quite "radical", well compared to me. You just seemed like one of those people who are very political.. hope you don't mind me saying that. I am too, which is why I wondered.
Personally, I was a tory, but I'm having a bit of an off period with them. I'm a centrist in the game, (see sig) but in reality im right of centre. To my shame, I read the Daily Mail.
daily mail?? mm i do love reading a big book full of lies and nonsense each morning... :rolleyes:
*reads the times... vaguely indipendent/unbiased...*

but no i dunno - i'm not really 'political'. i have values i live by and that kinda makes my political opinions strong, philisophically (i also studied politics at uni), but i don't really stay up to date (or very deeply informed) with "real-world" politics - much rather engage in some ideological or philisiophical political debates instead :p

no shame in being a tory though, really... just so long as you're not one of those nutters who loves maggie (evil) thatcher... *nods*

daily mail?? mm i do love reading a big book full of lies and nonsense each morning... :rolleyes:
*reads the times... vaguely indipendent/unbiased...*

but no i dunno - i'm not really 'political'. i have values i live by and that kinda makes my political opinions strong, philisophically (i also studied politics at uni), but i don't really stay up to date (or very deeply informed) with "real-world" politics - much rather engage in some ideological or philisiophical political debates instead :p

no shame in being a tory though, really... just so long as you're not one of those nutters who loves maggie (evil) thatcher... *nods*

Fair enough. Your ideals definately have more integrity than "real world politics." When people try to change their party to suit other people, it's a little dishonest to my mind... I'd rather be ideologically-sound than Mr. Popularity. That's the main reason New Labour is such a shame; because it's a mix of tory policies and bullshit. But then, that is why I'm not a politician.

Also... maggie isn't my cup of tea. To be honest, she scares me.

but no i dunno - i'm not really 'political'. i have values i live by and that kinda makes my political opinions strong, philisophically (i also studied politics at uni), but i don't really stay up to date (or very deeply informed) with "real-world" politics - much rather engage in some ideological or philisiophical political debates instead :p
That's because "real-world" politics are a load of bollocks. It's no longer to do with anything much more than retaining power for no real reason (such as to make a difference). All parties blur together and have no decent principles or aims except for ones to further themselves.

*is not cynical*....

That's because "real-world" politics are a load of bollocks. It's no longer to do with anything much more than retaining power for no real reason (such as to make a difference). All parties blur together and have no decent principles or aims except for ones to further themselves.

*is not cynical*....
It'd be possible to make a difference if parliamentary terms were longer (say 10 years). I don't think we should implement this, but if a party is only in power for 5 years, and wants to retain power at the next election, it has to be able to produce results quickly. Quick results are generally not the best ones long-term. Given a longer time frame, political parties would put in place long term strategies that would probably initially be unpopular, but there would be no risk of losing power in a few years because of it.

It'd be possible to make a difference if parliamentary terms were longer (say 10 years). I don't think we should implement this, but if a party is only in power for 5 years, and wants to retain power at the next election, it has to be able to produce results quickly. Quick results are generally not the best ones long-term. Given a longer time frame, political parties would put in place long term strategies that would probably initially be unpopular, but there would be no risk of losing power in a few years because of it.

Democracy never works... *sigh*

It'd be possible to make a difference if parliamentary terms were longer (say 10 years). I don't think we should implement this, but if a party is only in power for 5 years, and wants to retain power at the next election, it has to be able to produce results quickly. Quick results are generally not the best ones long-term. Given a longer time frame, political parties would put in place long term strategies that would probably initially be unpopular, but there would be no risk of losing power in a few years because of it.
See, part of me thinks they wouldn't. I find it hard to believe that they want to try and make things better, but can't. I'm just in an extra cycnical mood today for some reason.

Saying that, I think the media has fucked things up hugely. You can't say anything at all new or original or vaguely radical or anything truthful, because it just gets twisted and turned against you. So politicans have to lie because otherwise they'll just get crushed to pieces. And it's an impossible situation to break because the media is always there, ready to pounce. You also get caught up in revolving around staying popular and powerful, perhaps in the vague hope that, one day, you'll get to make a difference.

The media also turns it into something ridiculously un-issue based.

But I don't know how you solve it without severe cuts in freedom of speech.

but no i dunno - i'm not really 'political'. i have values i live by and that kinda makes my political opinions strong, philisophically (i also studied politics at uni), but i don't really stay up to date (or very deeply informed) with "real-world" politics - much rather engage in some ideological or philisiophical political debates instead :p


that's exactly like me! i'm afraid i prefer a more scholarly political philosophy rather than real-time politics. should do something about though. to be honest, current politics just seem so alien to what i'm studying (still in university), undefinable in a way.

i'm new to english politics. what do the lib-dems stand for these days? and how are they different from labour?

i'm new to english politics. what do the lib-dems stand for these days? and how are they different from labour?

Well thats not an easy question to answer. Generally all three are similar, all being roughly based on Thatcher's moneterist policies (although most labourites would rather kill themselves then admit it). All stand for liberal economics as well. But in a few matter of policy,

Labour is lead by the New labour faction Blair, Mandelson, Banks etc but has more traditional Labour grass routes. They have put forward identity cards, detention of terrorist suspects without trial but have also increased money on NHS benefits etc. They have continued the growth started in the major government but its now starting to slow.

Lib Dems. Made from the Liberal Party and SDP. The party is still in two halves generally but without ever taking power it isn't known how it will manifest itself. They support higher taxes and greater spending on services. They want to fund this through a top 50% tax, although in a slowing economy Britain might not be able to aford it without going into recession. They were against Iraq and identity cards etc.

Conservatives. Have been out for power for three parliamentary sessions. The most right wing. Support simplification of goverment systems including tax. Some members of the party are favourable to flat tax but this isn't offical policy. Supported Iraq and didn't give a definate answer over terrorism bill. Conservatives had internment for IRA terrorist during in the 80s. With Cameron at the helm it seems likley that ID cards, and internment will be off the menu. Their other main policy is sharing the procedes of growth on tax cuts to stimulate further growth and public services, but it doesn't look llike Britains economy will make the distance at present.

I'm supporting Menzies (Ming) Campbell. I know people will say he's too old, but it's only recently that we've become obsessed with parties having young leaders, and I think he's the best person for the job.


only person who could possibly do the job

This is going to be difficult for the Lib Dems, a couple of days ago when there was talk of resignation I challenged several people that I know (including my parents) to name a Lib Dem apart from Kennedy. None of them could.

Oh, and I agree with Pure Metal that Lib Dems are the most leftist party that is in with a chance of winning so I'd vote for them if I could vote.

I reckon that 2005 will be seen as the highwatermark of the Lib Demss fortune. They managed to do very well in the General Election last year because some Labour voters will still grumpy about Iraq, and Michael Howard had scared off plenty of younger people who could have considered voting Tory.

Iraq will not play a part next time, and with David Cameron at it's helm the Tories should be able to move up to at least second place in the younger age groups. The Lib Dems will almost certainly have shifted leftwards, which will result in them losing most of their seats in former Tory shires.

After a short break, two-party politics looks set to be returning to Britain.

Me.

Fair enough. Your ideals definately have more integrity than "real world politics." When people try to change their party to suit other people, it's a little dishonest to my mind... I'd rather be ideologically-sound than Mr. Popularity. That's the main reason New Labour is such a shame; because it's a mix of tory policies and bullshit. But then, that is why I'm not a politician.

Also... maggie isn't my cup of tea. To be honest, she scares me.
but its not just new labour who have done that... all the main parties are just changing their message to 'appeal to more voters'
i'm sure more voters would be less apathetic and have more respect for the politicians and parties (and whole political system) if the parties stopped doing this and went back to fundamental ideological principles, not just trying to win over the most votes in the name of their own political careers and power.

there's an economic concept that i can't remember the name of (begins with an "h" and its not homogenisation... its someone's law) that states if you have two (or more) economic agents selling the same thing, they will eventually end up selling the same thing at the most efficient place/time/method because they both want to maximise sales/profit. they have to share profit, essentially, but they maximise it compared to what their individual profit would have been on the fringes.
the classic example we used was ice-cream salesmen on a beach, one one end of the beach, the other selling his wares at the other end. the first will realise that if he moves towards the centre, he can pull more people in from the middle of the beach while keeping his customers from his side. the other will realise this, too, and move in towards the middle to maximise his sales. eventually, because they are selling homogenous products, they both end up bang in the middle of the beach selling back-to-back.
i think the political arena is something like that, in that the parties are buying your vote - maybe not literally - and that vote is homogenous. hence, to maximise their sales (or aquisitions... i'm not quite sure which way round the terminology goes) all the parties simply manouver into the centre of the voters' political spectrum to maximise their individual and collective votes. its like a minimax situation, too.
point is... its stupid.

See, part of me thinks they wouldn't. I find it hard to believe that they want to try and make things better, but can't. I'm just in an extra cycnical mood today for some reason.

Saying that, I think the media has fucked things up hugely. You can't say anything at all new or original or vaguely radical or anything truthful, because it just gets twisted and turned against you. So politicans have to lie because otherwise they'll just get crushed to pieces. And it's an impossible situation to break because the media is always there, ready to pounce. You also get caught up in revolving around staying popular and powerful, perhaps in the vague hope that, one day, you'll get to make a difference.

The media also turns it into something ridiculously un-issue based.

But I don't know how you solve it without severe cuts in freedom of speech.
and thats what i was about to come on to... the media just make the situation worse when the feedback from reform or change is near-enough instant so that change and moving to meet the largest concentration of voters on the spectrum becomes all too easy. and also all too necessary once other parties start doing the same. if a competitor moves aggressively to sell more (votes) then you must do the same or your market share will diminish.

the media do make things a lot worse, but then again the freedom of speech is entirely necessary and good. the whole situation is between a rock and a hard place imo :(


hmm this is almost worthy of its own thread...