Ship of Fools: Is the British political landscape going to change?

Thread: Is the British political landscape going to change? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023005

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

I have come to adopt the word : ''disconnect''. There seems to be a lot of it about nowadays.

I WAS a Liberal Democrat. Indeed I was an elected Councillor. My part membership lapsed a number of years ago, but I always was happy to deliver leaflets for old friends and colleagues. Not anymore I won't.

I seem to be an archetypal disenfranchised British voter. I can't stand Cameron or Clegg (don't get me started on the tuition fees betrayal by the Lib Dems). I don't think I'm unusual.

We have a Green MP (Brighton) and a 'Respect' MP (Bradford ), so are we in for some landscape alteration on the UK British scene?

I refer to a Torygraph article.....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9216743/Is-politics-on-the-verge-of-a-breakdown.html

Farage's comment to the piece seem to the point:

''We are run by a bunch of college kids. None of them have ever had a job, never worked in the real world, they look the same, they sound the same, they are virtually interchangeable. They agree on all the big issues, whether it’s Europe or immigration or green taxes. The differences between them are so small that you frankly can’t put a cigarette paper between them. And so you’ve now got different parties with different philosophies that are beginning to pick up support.’’

Saul

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

In Scotland, the SNP are picking up a lot of votes as a credible party with sensible policies, from voters who don't necessarily want independence, or, in some cases, actually oppose independence.

Posted by PerkyEars (# 9577) on :

I hope so. Me and my husband recently joined UKIP. I think there are a lot of people who can't see their own views reflected in the center parties, and who no longer trust them.

Posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd) (# 12163) on :

The criticisms could, with minor alterations, be applied to the Labor and Coalition parties in Australia.

The third party, the Greens, has become a bit more problematic.

Posted by Eigon (# 4917) on :

Our local town council are having the first contested election for years, this May. Previously, there has been so little interest in it that they have had to co-opt new members, but this time there are 17 candidates for 11 seats.
This is mainly because the "old guard" were ready to just roll over and do what the County Council told them when it came to providing a new school - which has caused an awful lot of local controversy.

On the national scale, I'll never vote Lib Dem again (which was my party of choice), partly for local reasons - our AM supports badger culling, and our MP has become a Tory mouthpiece.
The only sane alternative (for me) is either Green or Plaid Cymru.

Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sir Pellinore (ret'd):
The third party, the Greens, has become a bit more problematic.

I can't see The Greens being a credible third force any longer, their credibility with the public is shot thanks to their support for the carbon tax. Without their iconic (if monotonous) leader Bob Brown to rally around, they can't possibly have a shot at doing any better than the Democrats did after they supported the introduction of the GST.

Australians will only ever support outsider parties as long as they don't exceed their democratic mandate. Introducing unwanted taxes is by far the easiest way to exceed that mandate, because the electoral cycle is too short to allow a long-term perspective on whether an unpopular decision had merit.

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :

I'd vote for any party that would tick the following boxes:

(1) Opposes to the neo-liberal agenda of 'cut, deregulate, privatise'.  

(2) Is willing to shift tax burdens in favour of the poor and middle class.

  (3) Is determined to regulate banks, big businesses, and international trade, in order to protect workers, consumers and the environment.

  (4) Is committed to quality universal healthcare, education and public services.  

(5) Will reform the welfare system so that it provides a realistic safety net for everyone (not just a trapping people in a no-pay/low-pay underclass).  

(6) Takes 'post-growth', 'post-industrial' sustainability and 'holistic quality of life' issues seriously.

  (7) Is moderately and pragmatically liberal on social questions, without seeking novelty for its own sake, and without being 'trendy' or 'faddish'. 

 (8) Instinctively understands localism, subsidiarity and the importance of the 'human scale'.

  (9) Makes a serious commitment to democratisation and thorough constitutional reform - not just this tinkering and patching over the Lords etc.

  (10) Is opposed to war and imperialism.

(11) Has capable, experienced, candidates who are actually able commitment to getting things done - not just childish posturing.

(12) No cults of personality.

I don't see anyone like that on offer, except perhaps the Greens.

Galloway seems good on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10, but worries me on 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12.

Posted by Eirenist (# 13343) on :

If the policies of the centrist parties are so close to each other, could it possibly be something to do with having to cope with the world as it is, rather than the world as we would like it to be?

Posted by Hairy Biker (# 12086) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PerkyEars:
I hope so. Me and my husband recently joined UKIP. I think there are a lot of people who can't see their own views reflected in the center parties, and who no longer trust them.

If UKIP is the only answer then we're in real trouble!

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

But you might want to remember that, in most industrial countries in the Depression era, voters consistently voted against their best interests, and parties offered solutions that were damaging if not outright suicidal, just as happens now.

There is, for instance, a knee-jerk reaction to Keynesian formulas, "just because" (although maybe because we don't like the idea of constraining spending on good times, as Joseph of the coloured coat advised)

So we had to have a war to settle the dust, one which led to all that stuff, such as Medicare/NHS, that we all like but don't really want to pay for.

I could point out that the CCF under Tommy Douglas were in power in an impoverished Saskatchewan for 18 years at the tail end of that era, during which time they built a highway system, a rural hospital system and other "socialist" things, while never failing to show a surplus, something that no conservative or liberal party has ever done. But that sort of thing is now rejected as "wrong" for ideological reasons.

A new party will face all the tired attacks from the vested interests, and people will reject it as always. Now watch out for the calls for an enlightened despot.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

Double-posting to add that this opinion in Al Jazeera is rather more hopeful.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The Canadian landscape is undergoing considerable shifts at the moment. In Canada we're frequently given to electing dynasties, parties that hold power for decades continuously. The last of these, the Alberta Tories, in power for 40 years looks to be on the verge of falling. The longest running continuous dynasty was the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, for 42 years 1940 - 1985, "The Big Blue Machine" though they were always moderate.

The federal scene is in considerable flux. The NDP became Official Opposition last election with 105 seats and reduced the Liberal Party to third-party status, an ignominious defeat. The Liberals have now had two leaders in a row who have never been Prime Minister, a feat that has never happened before. Until 2005 the last Liberal leader to miss being PM was Edward Blake in the 1870's. The Bloc Quebecois was reduced to 4 seats, down from their usual 40 which was a great day for Canada.

It will take a few more elections until we know how things will work out federally. The NDP (I'm a member) have elected a leader who is a fighter in Tom Mulcair, we plainly want to go for the Liberal's jugular, after which we will go for the Tories jugular.

The Liberal Party is looking distinctly tired and clapped out at the moment. We might soon be writing "The Strange Death of Liberal Canada". If the Liberals don't make government next election, and they won't, it will be their worst streak of electoral defeats since 1867.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Paine's Bones:
I'd vote for any party that would tick the following boxes:

(1) Opposes to the neo-liberal agenda of 'cut, deregulate, privatise'.  

(2) Is willing to shift tax burdens in favour of the poor and middle class.

  (3) Is determined to regulate banks, big businesses, and international trade, in order to protect workers, consumers and the environment.

  (4) Is committed to quality universal healthcare, education and public services.  

(5) Will reform the welfare system so that it provides a realistic safety net for everyone (not just a trapping people in a no-pay/low-pay underclass).  

(6) Takes 'post-growth', 'post-industrial' sustainability and 'holistic quality of life' issues seriously.

  (7) Is moderately and pragmatically liberal on social questions, without seeking novelty for its own sake, and without being 'trendy' or 'faddish'. 

 (8) Instinctively understands localism, subsidiarity and the importance of the 'human scale'.

  (9) Makes a serious commitment to democratisation and thorough constitutional reform - not just this tinkering and patching over the Lords etc.

  (10) Is opposed to war and imperialism.

(11) Has capable, experienced, candidates who are actually able commitment to getting things done - not just childish posturing.

(12) No cults of personality.

I don't see anyone like that on offer, except perhaps the Greens.

Galloway seems good on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10, but worries me on 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12.

Me too, I guess - trouble is, nobody is standing on such a platform (maybe the Greens get close) so what do we do then?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Move to Scotland and vote SNP?

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

The SNP gets -10 points for winning the Rene Levesque prize in political theatre.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

Is Gorgeous George Galloway's election a sign of a general disenfranchisement at the ballot box across the UK?

Are the main three parties going to lose big time in the local government elections? Losing out to minority parties or independents?

Saul

Posted by Shire Dweller (# 16631) on :

Political reporting in the UK doesn't really know what to make of support for smaller parties. The news narrative is so used to the two big parties slugging it out over the apparently all important 'centre ground' that alternative choices are either ignored or caricatured as extremists. Therefore the reporting we get as 'news consumers' doesn't at all reflect how smaller parties are perceived in different parts of the UK and what that means for the country as a whole.

A good upcoming example is the Glasgow Council Elections in May.

There is almost no coverage “south of the border” of the momentous possibility of the SNP taking control of Glasgow City Council. The news media see the SNP as only interesting when Wee Eck throws a strop about some perceived slight by an English B******. But, if the SNP take Glasgow City Council, that is an enormous change of the Political landscape for the whole UK as it represents a rejection of Labour by its core Scottish support. ......But there is little reporting of SNP policies and the implications of West of Scotland voters rejecting Labour.

If Labour lose Scotland, there will not be a Labour government in England again, as there is an in-built Conservative majority in England (seen just by looking at voting patterns) It may seem counter-intuitive to Labour supporters in England, but the Union is important to getting a Labour government. If Labour loses the votes of Scots, Labour will never have a chance of forming a single party government in England.
The reality then for 'progressive' politics is to hope that there are enough votes cast for a 'progressive' coalition to be formed and so avoid Conservative single party or coalition government.

So yes, we are looking at some sort of unpredictable change, especially if the SNP really does prove itself to be what they want to be “The National Party of Scotland”

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

Something's got to give in British politics. For whatever reasons there is a colossal disengagement from politics on the part of citizens. Although the reasons are complex, and I disagree with virtually everything Nigel Farage says, I think he's spot on with his

quote:
"We are run by a bunch of college kids. None of them have ever had a job, never worked in the real world, they look the same, they sound the same, they are virtually interchangeable."

The mainstream politicians compound the problem of disengagement with their responses which usually amount to patronising, nagging, or just offering more of the same in the hope that something'll turn up.

The present situation can't go on much longer. Discontent has a nasty tendency to turn to violence, and the end of that is that we're all stuffed.

Posted by Justinian (# 5357) on :

I used to be a solid Lib Dem/Green vote (Lib where they had a chance, Green where they didn't). It's now a Labour over Lib Dem anti-Tory vote with Green anywhere it doesn't matter (which is most constituencies).

Posted by Trisagion (# 5235) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
If Labour lose Scotland, there will not be a Labour government in England again, as there is an in-built Conservative majority in England (seen just by looking at voting patterns) It may seem counter-intuitive to Labour supporters in England, but the Union is important to getting a Labour government. If Labour loses the votes of Scots, Labour will never have a chance of forming a single party government in England.

Would that were so but I seem to remember that Blair would have won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 with or without Scotland,

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :

The dislocation is real. But I think to understand it we need to go back to the oil crisis and the stagflation of the 1970s. At that time a broad attack from the ('neo-liberal') economic right was launched against the post-war consensus. Inspired by Hayak and Friedman, they were opposed to the 'big state', to taxation, to union power, to nationalised industries, to swollen bureaucracies and to heavy regulation - all these things seemed to burden entrepreneurs, stifle growth, limit the application of new technology, undermine incentives, promote inefficiency, and to restrict personal choice and responsibility. Thatcher set out to tackle this with a good dose of old fashioned 'Manchesterism': the unions were to be broken, business set free to innovate, people liberated to exercise choice in the free market. The old restrictive certainties would be swept aside in the brave new world, where the consumer - not the citizen - was king. Freedom was redefined as 'minimal interference', not 'public control'. '

And so the orthodoxies were set: cut taxes, deregulate, privatise, off-shore and marketise. Let the free hand of the market - and, crucially, the egoistic, greedy values of the market, rule. There Was No Alternative', so we were told. Those who disagreed were 'dinosaurs'.

Problem is, these economic orthodoxies, while they initially produced a lot of growth, didn't do much to actually improve the quality of life for most people. Almost all the gain went to those at the top. 'Genuine Progress Indicators' - that measure quality of life - were static and have declined. Anxiety and uncertainty increased. In economic terms, a two-income household today in the UK and US (for all its glitzy technology) is materially poorer, and much less secure, than a one-income household of equivalent standing in the 1960s. Private utilities were no better than public ones. Choice turned out to be largely illusionary. Debt, housing bubbles and artificially cheap oil could only sustain the illusion so far.

The orthodoxies aren't working for people. We need a new economic model. Not, perhaps, a return to the old New Deal Keynesian post-war model, but something else. Something that recognises that people have feelings too. The financial crisis exposed this. It made us question the dogmas, the values and the assumptions of the last 30 years. The Occupy movement, for all its faults, was the vanguard of this. But others - people who are not politically active, and don't much care for long hair or drumming circles - are also realising the system is grossly unfair. There's one rule for the rich and another for the poor. We are governed by people who don't know us, don't care for us, and don't live in our world. The bankers walk away with their bonuses, and we get cuts. The sense of hopelessness is profound amongst those at the bottom: no wonder there is unrest. The sense of fear and vulnerability is profound amongst those in the middle. And those at the very top are laughing at us.

There was a political dimension to all this as well. Thatcher's Free Market Revolution had to entrench itself. To do that, she had to destroy the working class that provided the main support for Labour style social democracy and union power. So she deliberately destroyed manufacturing, and hoped to rebuild the economy on banking, retail, leisure and call centres. The Labour base was undermined, and faced with the prospect of electoral wipe-out, Labour moved to the right under Blair. It ceased to be a social democratic party and became a neo-liberal party. The policies of Thatcherism continued, with only marginal abatement. Now, under Cameron, they are being re-applied with full force. The 'defection' by the Liberal Democrats has worsened the situation, because now there really is no alternative, electorally. Almost all the economic advances made by ordinary people in the twentieth century - from public education to healthcare - are being eroded. It's back to the nineteenth century. Or the 1920s, anyway.

So we have reached an impasse. Thatcherism (neo-liberal economics enforced by an rigid state) has become the ruling orthodoxy of all three parties at the time when its practical as well as moral failures have finally been realised by large numbers of people. The elite consensus is out of tune with popular experience and grievances. If you have ever studied history, you don't have to look far to see that is the stuff that revolutions are made of.

The only opposition to this Con-Lib-Lab Thatcherite consensus comes from marginal voices: the Greens and Respect, perhaps some elements of the SNP and Plaid Cymru (who occupy a similar position in the centre-left of the scale to that previously occupied, but now abandoned, by the LibDems). So there are perhaps a total of ten 10 MPs who constitute the real opposition, while the other 640 all sing the same tune in slightly different keys. My guess is that those 10 are speaking for the sentiments of around half the population.

We've not had such unequal misrepresentation since before the Great Reform Act. We had a half chance to change it, with the AV referendum (which would have helped to bring about a partial realignment by reducing the spoiler effect), but we blew it.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The SNP gets -10 points for winning the Rene Levesque prize in political theatre.

At the moment, the SNP are proposing a referendum with three options; status quo, "Devo-max" (i.e. Scotland becoming more devolved, but still remaining within the Union), or full independence. If the SNP get their way, I think the vote will almost certainly be for Devo-max.

However, the Unionist parties in general, and the Tories in particular, want an either/or referendum; status quo or full independence. In which case, it's less clear which way the vote might go, but a vote for independence is a real possibility.

So, bizarrely, we have a situation in which the SNP are offering a middle-ground, whereas the Tories are going for the political theatre of all-or-nothing. At the moment David Cameron is more likely to deliver full independence and the break-up of the union, than Alex Salmond.

The SNP have lots of supporters (I'd count myself one) who vote for them because of their track record of sensible social policies, support for the NHS, opposing the invasion of Iraq, support for the development of new green industry etc etc. Of Tom Paine's Bones list of twelve, I'd say the SNP tick ten of the boxes. I'm not sure about (3) or (12) although I don't think Alex Salmond himself cultivates a cult of personality, quite the opposite, but rather has had that foisted on him.

[ 22. April 2012, 06:56: Message edited by: North East Quine ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

There was an interesting radio interview with a historian who had studied Washington State politics during the Great Depression. The noticeable overview was that in the next one or two election cycles almost all of the incumbents of all parties were thrown out.

It will be interesting to see if that happens this time around. There's certainly a huge cynicism about Congress and the legislature.

Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Paine's Bones:
I'd vote for any party that would tick the following boxes:

(1) Opposes to the neo-liberal agenda of 'cut, deregulate, privatise'.  

(2) Is willing to shift tax burdens in favour of the poor and middle class.

  (3) Is determined to regulate banks, big businesses, and international trade, in order to protect workers, consumers and the environment.

  (4) Is committed to quality universal healthcare, education and public services.  

(5) Will reform the welfare system so that it provides a realistic safety net for everyone (not just a trapping people in a no-pay/low-pay underclass).  

(6) Takes 'post-growth', 'post-industrial' sustainability and 'holistic quality of life' issues seriously.

  (7) Is moderately and pragmatically liberal on social questions, without seeking novelty for its own sake, and without being 'trendy' or 'faddish'. 

 (8) Instinctively understands localism, subsidiarity and the importance of the 'human scale'.

  (9) Makes a serious commitment to democratisation and thorough constitutional reform - not just this tinkering and patching over the Lords etc.

  (10) Is opposed to war and imperialism.

(11) Has capable, experienced, candidates who are actually able commitment to getting things done - not just childish posturing.

(12) No cults of personality.

I don't see anyone like that on offer, except perhaps the Greens.

Galloway seems good on 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10, but worries me on 6, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12.

I am not being deliberately provocative here, and I;m not sure how far I agree with them, but the the work of ResPublica and Philip Blond in 'Red Tory' will tick boxes 2, 3 (although regulated in favour of small businesses - preventing large corporate takeovers), 4, 5, 6, 8 (most especially - the biggest issue for them) and 9.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Something's got to give in British politics. For whatever reasons there is a colossal disengagement from politics on the part of citizens. Although the reasons are complex, and I disagree with virtually everything Nigel Farage says, I think he's spot on with his
quote:
"We are run by a bunch of college kids. None of them have ever had a job, never worked in the real world, they look the same, they sound the same, they are virtually interchangeable."
The mainstream politicians compound the problem of disengagement with their responses which usually amount to patronising, nagging, or just offering more of the same in the hope that something'll turn up.

The present situation can't go on much longer. Discontent has a nasty tendency to turn to violence, and the end of that is that we're all stuffed.

Yes, I think the disconnect between Westminster's professional political class (all three leaders are part of that elite group) is massive.

This disconnect is wider than I've ever noticed; whether it will be translated into long term change, who knows. The trend is at General Election people retreat to tribal certainties and go with the big three parties - maybe just maybe not next time?

The fact that Clegg and now Cameron are suffering and it appears to continue suffering, with no General Election in sight, may mean the local government elections could raise some strange spectres. A lot of people aren't willing to trust Milliband and the same old elites that ruled them under Blair/Brown.

UKIP, The Greens, Respect, and other minority parties could win big in the local government elections in May, although where I live there are no local elections due to the cycle.

Saul

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
]I am not being deliberately provocative here, and I;m not sure how far I agree with them, but the the work of ResPublica and Philip Blond in 'Red Tory' will tick boxes 2, 3 (although regulated in favour of small businesses - preventing large corporate takeovers), 4, 5, 6, 8 (most especially - the biggest issue for them) and 9.

I'm not sure what to make of ResPublica, Philip Blond or the Red Tories.

They are clearly a slick, well-funded organisation, with an international reach (and that always unsettles me a bit - who is paying for it, and why?).

They are supposedly the intellectual gurus behind Cameron and the inspiration for the Big Society idea. But, in reality, are they just a fig-leaf for more cuts?

For what it is worth, I think they completely fail on point 9, which is a bit of a deal-breaker for me anyway. When it comes to constitutional matters he's the most Toriest Tory of all the Tories in the whole of Toryland. I'm also worried about their stance on point 7.

So I'm very much unconvinced by these people. I'm really not sure whether they are trying to be Christian Democrats or Arch Tories - and I fear the latter.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The SNP gets -10 points for winning the Rene Levesque prize in political theatre.

Scotland is not Quebec. The issues are different, the people are different, the politics are different.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:
Would that were so but I seem to remember that Blair would have won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 with or without Scotland,

Also a two-party system with FPTP voting pretty much automatically adjusts to give parity between the parties.

The electoral problem for Labour in the near future isn't Scotland, its the imminent collapse of the Liberal vote. There are quite a few seats that Labour only wins because otherwise natural Tory voters vote for those nice Liberals. Take them away and return to a two-horse race as in the 60s and 70s and things get much harder.

Posted by Tom Paine's Bones (# 17027) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The electoral problem for Labour in the near future isn't Scotland, its the imminent collapse of the Liberal vote. There are quite a few seats that Labour only wins because otherwise natural Tory voters vote for those nice Liberals. Take them away and return to a two-horse race as in the 60s and 70s and things get much harder.

I don't know what you mean by 'natural Tory voters'. I would have thought most 'natural Tory voters' vote Tory. Those who hitherto voted for 'those nice Liberals' are probably not going to vote Tory - they are more likely to switch to 'those nice Greens'.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Farage is, as ever talking bollocks. One women, eleven men, all white middle-aged and middle-class. They are no more representative of the population as a whole than are the leaders of the three major parties.

It's true that the House of Commons was more closely aligned to the population, but many were lawyers, journalists, trade union officers and teachers and lecturers there, which isn't that broad a spread either. If there are more 'professional politicians' in parliament then that ought to be a good thing as, having worked in parliament for MPs, they will be aware of the way Whitehall operates, as well as Westminster.

If the political landscape changes it is that far fewer people will vote at the next election. Those who voted LibDem last time out probably won't vote at all.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Trisagion:

quote:
Originally posted by Shire Dweller:
If Labour lose Scotland, there will not be a Labour government in England again, as there is an in-built Conservative majority in England (seen just by looking at voting patterns) It may seem counter-intuitive to Labour supporters in England, but the Union is important to getting a Labour government. If Labour loses the votes of Scots, Labour will never have a chance of forming a single party government in England.
Would that were so but I seem to remember that Blair would have won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 with or without Scotland,

I hope you're right. I have been very worried that if the Scots go it alone we shall be condemned for ever to Tory governments. That prospect makes me want to emigrate.

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Tom Paine's Bones:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
The electoral problem for Labour in the near future isn't Scotland, its the imminent collapse of the Liberal vote. There are quite a few seats that Labour only wins because otherwise natural Tory voters vote for those nice Liberals. Take them away and return to a two-horse race as in the 60s and 70s and things get much harder.
I don't know what you mean by 'natural Tory voters'. I would have thought most 'natural Tory voters' vote Tory. Those who hitherto voted for 'those nice Liberals' are probably not going to vote Tory - they are more likely to switch to 'those nice Greens'.

Yes, I don't understand ken's comment either. People have voted LibDem because they have been pissed off with New Labour; now they're even more pissed off with the LDs and the Tories they'll go back to Miliband. Or else they have voted LibDem as a way of saying 'a plague on both your houses': now the LDs have soiled their hands in the dirty business of government they can only turn to the Greens. I can't think of anyone who thinks that they haven't been Tory enough.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Another Ex Lib-Dem voter checking in.

I intend to vote Green.

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

I've lost my job as a result of the Conservatives' "efforts" to sort out Labour's mess, and the Lib-Dems have done diddley-squat to reign the boys in blue in. I refuse to vote for any party that tries to get Peter Tatchell as a candidate, so that's the Greens out.

What the hell does that leave me with? UKIP? BNP? Tree Hugging Bunny Cuddling Vegetable Rights Party?

Shit... You can't even reach the lampposts these days, they are so tall... You know things are bad when I surface on a politics thread - it's a subject about as enjoyable as haemorrhoids.

AG

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sandemaniac:
I refuse to vote for any party that tries to get Peter Tatchell as a candidate, so that's the Greens out.

Care to explain? Or is it a Dead Horse?

Posted by Sandemaniac (# 12829) on :

I just think that he's noxious, self-publicising and self-obsessed, and his aggressive tactics put gay rights back about a century (that last bit is almost certainly a Dead Horse). Any party who think he's a good candidate have lost any credibility they might have had in my eyes.

Feel free to call me a judgemental git, but you are only going to change my views on him with a lump hammer applied to my skull.

AG

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by leo:
I hope you're right. I have been very worried that if the Scots go it alone we shall be condemned for ever to Tory governments. That prospect makes me want to emigrate.

You won't need to. When people make these lazy statements, they assume that political parties will go on peddling the same old policies as always. Labour would readjust to the new realities. Their policies might become a bit more rightwing than now, but they would probably be able to re-seize power from the Tories eventually. And you can happily stay put. [Biased]

Posted by Angloid (# 159) on :

Leo might happily stay put under a Labour government that's even more right wing than the last one. I should feel distinctly uncomfortable.

Sandemaniac: I can't believe that there is any party without at least one 'noxious, self-publicising, self-obsessed, and aggressive' candidate. That's how they get elected.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
The SNP gets -10 points for winning the Rene Levesque prize in political theatre.
Scotland is not Quebec. The issues are different, the people are different, the politics are different.

Aside from the lack of culture wars over language, the rhetoric could be copy and pasted between the two. The SNP has said nothing and done nothing that has not been done in Quebec by the PQ in two earlier referendums.

The fact that you support the SNP's position, ken, is irrelevant except that it appears you don't like the uncomfortable conclusions.

Devo-Max isn't weird, nor is the SNP's position weird. It was precisely the same strategy pushed by the PQ in the 1980 and 1995 referendums, particularly the latter. A "Grand Devolution" that guts the central government and if the other partner refuses, independence. The trouble is that Devo-Max aka Sovereignty Association does not consider what the other partner will or will not accept, it does not consider that negotiations could fail and tries to put the smaller partner in a "tail wagging the dog" position. Not to mention the difficulty of trying to negotiate after slapping the other partner in the face.

Devo-Max/Sovereignty-Association is a ploy to garner as many soft "Yes" votes as possible by trying to promise that things really won't change, to convince the mushy middle to change. Again, it won't work. Tail wagging the dog.

-20 points to the SNP for reusing PQ rhetoric.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by SPK:

quote:
Devo-Max isn't weird, nor is the SNP's position weird.

Has anybody said that they were weird?

quote:
Devo-Max/Sovereignty-Association is a ploy to garner as many soft "Yes" votes as possible by trying to promise that things really won't change, to convince the mushy middle to change. Again, it won't work. Tail wagging the dog.

I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Devo-max means that "things really won't change." Of course they will change. There will be an option in any referendum to retain the status quo. People who don't want anything to change will vote for that, not for Devo-max.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

quote:
So, bizarrely, we have a situation in which the SNP are offering a middle-ground, whereas the Tories are going for the political theatre of all-or-nothing. At the moment David Cameron is more likely to deliver full independence and the break-up of the union, than Alex Salmond.

Bizzare = Weird?

The Quebec separatist camp in 1995 advocated "Sovereignty-Association" then listed all the things that wouldn't change: they'd keep the Canadian dollar, passports, the civil servants in Ottawa/Gatineau wouldn't get laid off, unrestricted free trade, the Bank of Canada would be the central bank, no battles over the national debt....

All the glory, none of the pain. And completely unrealistic as it presumed the other provinces would be in the mood to negotiate, a very, very big assumption that was very likely false. It was specifically aimed at those could be won over on emotion but would be scared away by logic so as to ensure as large a Yes vote as possible.

This strategy has been analyzed to death in Canada over three decades by a political class that was confronted with the task of countering it.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I said the situation (whereby Tory policies of full independence or status quo are more likely to result in full independence than the SNP policy of a three option referendum) was bizarre, not that devo-max was bizarre.

The feeling here is that either the Tories are keen to see Scotland go, and are tailoring their policies accordingly towards that end, or that David Cameron is hopelessly inept and inadvertently encouraging full independence.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

And I said that is precisely what happened in Canada. It wasn't bizarre, the PQ and now the SNP are equivocating. You combat equivocation by calling the bluff.

Posted by agingjb (# 16555) on :

A separate England would have essentially two party politics of some sort - that's the way the FPTP electoral system works (and the English voted for it).

A mostly ineffective minority of us will detest both parties, whatever they are, and the occasional exceptional independent or small party MP will be elected.

At the 2010 election our helpful Lib Dem MP lost to a Tory. If she stands again I'll vote for her, since she is not part of the Coalition, nor a friend of Clegg. Otherwise, Green if possible, but probably not vote.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by SPK:

quote:
The Quebec separatist camp in 1995 advocated "Sovereignty-Association" then listed all the things that wouldn't change: they'd keep the Canadian dollar, passports, the civil servants in Ottawa/Gatineau wouldn't get laid off, unrestricted free trade, the Bank of Canada would be the central bank, no battles over the national debt....

All the glory, none of the pain. And completely unrealistic as it presumed the other provinces would be in the mood to negotiate, a very, very big assumption that was very likely false. It was specifically aimed at those could be won over on emotion but would be scared away by logic so as to ensure as large a Yes vote as possible.

I don't recognise this scenario. Devo max means that Scotland would have full fiscal autonomy i.e. taxes raised in Scotland would stay in Scotland, and Scotland would no longer receive money under the Barnett formula. The Barnett formula is, I understand from the media, widely unpopular in England too. The minutiae of reorganising the taxation system is hardly "glory." Nobody's suggesting no pain; there would unmdoubtedly be job losses, but job gains too. It's perfectly possible that Scots would end up paying a higher rate of income tax than in England.

In the 1997 referendum, 63.5% of those who voted, voted in favour of tax-varying powers, i.e. that Scots could potentially pay a higher rate of taxation than in England. I suspect a similiar vote today would produce a similar result. People who vote to be taxed more in order to safeguard e.g. the NHS are hardly "all emotion and no logic."

Scots are in precisely the situation outlined by so many in this thread; they feel that all the traditional main parties Conservative, Lib/Dem, Labour have lost credibility. If those were the only choices we had, we would feel, as Saul the Apostle said in the OP "disenfranchised" However, we have another option; the SNP. The SNP are gaining large numbers of voters because of the sense that none of the other parties can be trusted to e.g. keep the NHS safe.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

if Scotland were independent then the political equilibrium in England would change so it is unlikely that there would be just Tory governments as people would no longer vote on the basis of the current set up.

I doubt whether the non-Scottish population of the United Kingdom would accept "devo-max" which is just a ploy by the Nationalists to stay in power if they cannot get full independence. So Scotland needs to make up its mind as to independence or not and not try to muddy the issue.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

The Nationalists are going to stay in power anyway because, for the reasons set out in the OP, and by other posters throughout this thread, the three other main parties , Conservatives, Labour and Lib/Dem have all become dislocated from mainstream voters.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The Nationalists are going to stay in power anyway because, for the reasons set out in the OP, and by other posters throughout this thread, the three other main parties , Conservatives, Labour and Lib/Dem have all become dislocated from mainstream voters.

Perhaps that it is because the other three parties are all stuck in the real world whilst parties like the Nationalists and the Greens are in a never-never world of "it would all be better if" which the Liberals have only recently vacated.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:

The fact that you support the SNP's position, ken, is irrelevant except that it appears you don't like the uncomfortable conclusions.

Er, I don't. I live in England and I vote Labour. If I lived in Scotland I'd almost certainly vote Labour as well.I'm a member of the Labour Party. If I wasn't the chances are that I'd be either not politically active at all or be looking around for some credible socialist or socialist-anarchist party that wasn't corrupted by egotists like George Galloway.

I don't actually really care much whether Scotland is independent or not. The opposite of the SNP position.

But I do oknow lots of people who do, and I've got lots of friends and relatives who vote SNP, or are active in the SNP (including some way back to the 1950s) and I've got a pretty good idea of its history and policies and, seriously, you are misinterpreting it by confusing it with people you don't like in Canada. You honestly do not understand it.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Perhaps that it is because the other three parties are all stuck in the real world

If they are stuck in the real world, why do so many posters on this thread say they do not want to vote for any of them? Why the talk of disenfranchisement, of disconnection?

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
The Nationalists are going to stay in power anyway because, for the reasons set out in the OP, and by other posters throughout this thread, the three other main parties , Conservatives, Labour and Lib/Dem have all become dislocated from mainstream voters.
Perhaps that it is because the other three parties are all stuck in the real world whilst parties like the Nationalists and the Greens are in a never-never world of "it would all be better if" which the Liberals have only recently vacated.

If the 'real world' is that which asserts that man serves the economy, rather than the economy serving man, I want no part of that world at all and I am truly baffled why anyone would.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Perhaps that it is because the other three parties are all stuck in the real world
If they are stuck in the real world, why do so many posters on this thread say they do not want to vote for any of them? Why the talk of disenfranchisement, of disconnection?

Perhaps because if you have a thread about people being fed up with the political system posters who are fed up with it will post to it!

People are bound to be fed up because the real world is stuck with problems like debt which cannot be just wished away. If they could then the Greeks would have wished it. As far as I am concerned I wish that Scotland had joined the Zone of Prosperity (or whatever it was called) with Iceland and Ireland. The Scots would then have had to bail out RBS and BoS.

The Nationalist's USP is independence as without that they are just the Labour Party without a lot of the undesirable historical political baggage. I suspect the tide has turned against independence north of the border although it is gaining traction south of it, the SNP realise this and have therefore come up with Devo-max or Indo-lite or whatever. That is not a viable option however.

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Perhaps because if you have a thread about people being fed up with the political system posters who are fed up with it will post to it!

However, the forthcoming council elections on 3 May are likely to indicate that dissatisfaction with the main parties goes far beyond a few dissaffected Shippies.

Posted by Trickydicky (# 16550) on :

I think disenfranchisement goes two ways. Too many voters dismiss all politicians out of hand. Certainly *some* are egotistical party hacks who would vote for anything their party told them to and be able to justify it.

But of course many politicians are just good people ground down by the system.

I blame computers - seriously. The politicians know where the battle ground is - whether its taxi drivers in Basildon or Worcester woman. So they put all their effort there. They don't need to listen to their core vote, and they don't listen to the vote they will never win. But all that means is they have stopped listening altogether.

They think they know how to win elections, but hey don't know how to win the electorate. [brick wall]

Posted by lowlands_boy (# 12497) on :

quote:
Originally posted by North East Quine:
Originally posted by aumbry:

quote:
Perhaps because if you have a thread about people being fed up with the political system posters who are fed up with it will post to it!
However, the forthcoming council elections on 3 May are likely to indicate that dissatisfaction with the main parties goes far beyond a few dissaffected Shippies.

In that case, it will just constitute p*ss poor turnout as it frequently the case. We have a seat to vote for in our local council elections on 3rd May, and the three candidates are Conservative, Labour, and Lib Dem. So if you want to be dissatisfied with all three main parties, perhaps you should spoil your paper.

We also have seven seats on the parish council, and only five candidates, so quite why there is a need for an election in that case I don't know.

Besides, "party/parties in national government getting a bloody nose in local elections" is not exactly a new phenomenon.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

I see reports that the LibDems have fallen into second place in the polls behind UKIP.

Sounds about right. Clegg and his chums seem to have had a death wish with their promotion of things like AV and House of Lords Reform for which there was and is no public clamour. Did I hear a rumour that they are still keen on Euro membership too?

I suppose the LibDems support for a government with a wholly incompetent Chancellor of the Exchequer called George doesn't do them any favours too!

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I see reports that the LibDems have fallen into second place in the polls behind UKIP.

What? UKIP the strongest party ahead of the Liberals? Will they form a coalition? Or if the Tories and Labour get together with the Greens, will they be able to establish a credible minority government with Cymru Plaid and the SNP holding the keys? Political landslide in Aumbry's Britain already!

Posted by Inger (# 15285) on :

What I find infuriating is that so many voters take their disappointment with Clegg out on the local LibDems. Here in Newcastle we had a really good LD council, but it was lost to Labour last year. I'm very much afraid it will get even worse this year, and we'll be back to the way things used to be, with a pretty useless Labour council. In the years in which the council had a LibDem majority, we saw some valuable changes and improvements.

I shall vote for our LD councillor, who's done sterling work for the ward; but I'm very much afraid she'll lose, all because people can't or won't distinguish between local and national politics.

Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on :

For a while Clegg and the Lib Dems deflected all the muck that folk felt about the coalition. The Tory party was sitting pretty. Clegg was a patsy. Of course the Lib Dems were stupid to try and prop the Tories up in the first place; but Clegg and his mates were desperate for power.

Now it is Cameron who is getting flack.

That must be painful for him and the coalition will continue because the PM and his deputy know that if a General Election were called this year they would be both be utterly wiped out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron/9223064/David-Cameron-and-Conservative-Party-slump-in-polls-amid-claim s-they-are-out-of-touch.html

Saul

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

Even Thatcher's Tories had low ratings between elections in the 80s. She still won elections. I'm convinced we'll have five more years of Cameron/Osborne package.

In the rest of Europe people are making clear to cuts-friendly governments what they think of them (in France and Holland, though I think that Sarkozy will gain fascist votes), and in France a far-left party gained its highest share of the vote since 1988. We also have the Catsuit Coalition success in Bradford. I think that both anti-capitalism and anti-immigrant parties will do better.

Posted by Molopata The Rebel (# 9933) on :

In part, I think that is also due to the sentiment that the fat cats' in-your-face capitalism has not been dealt with. Most people realise that you can't spend more than you earn in the long run, but they (and I among them) are seething at the fact that account-pushing charlatans walked away with the bounty in the good days and have mysteriously disappeared now that we've been asked to settle the bill for the party. Any government, regardless of their political stripe, which has failed to rectify this (and that is most) are in for a thrashing. It's a bad time to in government in most parts of Europe.

Posted by Rosa Winkel (# 11424) on :

I daresay that the economic problems exacerbated by George "double dip" Osborne will not be appreciated by those same fat cats.

Posted by aumbry (# 436) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Molopata The Rebel:

quote:
Originally posted by aumbry:
I see reports that the LibDems have fallen into second place in the polls behind UKIP.
What? UKIP the strongest party ahead of the Liberals? Will they form a coalition? Or if the Tories and Labour get together with the Greens, will they be able to establish a credible minority government with Cymru Plaid and the SNP holding the keys? Political landslide in Aumbry's Britain already!

Not quite - I meant that UKIP was the new third party. Not sure where "second place" came from. Possibly wishful thinking.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

Most recent national YouGov poll has Labour 45%, Tory 32%, Liberal 8%, UKIP 7%

MORI has Labour 38%, Tory 35%, Liberal 12%

ComRes (you?) have Labour 43%, Tory 33%, Liberal 11%

In the past British opinion polls have often tended to slightly over-estimate Labour votes and underestimate Tory and Liberal.

Specifically in London Johnson is still slightly ahead in opinion polls about the election for Mayor, with everyone else no-where.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0