People vote Lib Dem in Tory-LD marginals at least partly because they can't stomach voting Labour. A pact would be odd.

 

yes, I live in one. And I do. And it wouldn't be.....

 

What they gonna do not vote Lib dem again because of a pact with labour? The worst has already happened there is no down for the libdems, there is only up. The Libdem party will never again go in to a coalition with the right-wing (it would destroy them), so by a process of elimination that leaves only Labour (and which better reflects it's grass roots supporters as opposed to casual voters). The pressure is all on Labour, Libdems can just sit quietly back and wait for whoever is chosen to lead the party for 3 years (such trust in the candidates! Voters will be well impressed!) to watch the polls. Assuming they are correct, of course..

 

My guess is labour will need every friend it can muster.

 

 

They said these things in 1935 too....the liberals are much closer to the tory party than labour just look throughout history, in the 19th century liberals were just the tory party with a conscience!

Edited May 22, 201510 yr by steve201

Oh there just been announced there will be a live Labour Leadership hustings on the bbc on the 17th June. This will be different and a good watch!

They said these things in 1935 too....the liberals are much closer to the tory party than labour just look throughout history, in the 19th century liberals were just the tory party with a conscience!

 

True, but that's because there were no left wing democratic parties as such pretty much in most of the western world (it's more of a 20th century phenomenon, if you ignore dictators imposing their laws on the land under anti-rich movements where one set of "worker/liberty" revolutionaries ended up becoming the new elite), they were however as you say more the party of social conscience, until that wasn't enough and Labour came along and revolutionised British society for the better. When labour went overtly left wing in the 80's the Libs/SDP's were more left/central. During the Blair years they were at least as left-wing, and arguably more so in some areas.

 

Considering we have come full swing back to the early 20th century in terms of political and economic thinking the liberals could easily stake a claim to being the opposition again but the coalition destroyed that chance and has put them back to the 1960s in terms of seats. labour must renew this mantle now or someone else will come along.

 

The thing with Labour is that they have always been different to the other parties, more tribal in a way because they see society in a more radical co-operative way whereas the liberals and tories have always seen socirty through the ideology of the individual and their rights. Now Labour could easily become redundant if they maintain this line and the tories push the public in an increasingly right wing individualistic way in terms of encouraging private car use more, people who cant afford their own housing buying private property and breaking up trade unions but its up to labour what kind of 21st century vision they have and try to develop support for amongst the people - do they become tories with a conscience like the liberals used to be or stand up for their belief in a co-operative society in the words of their constitution - 'we achieve so much more together than we ever do alone'.

Edited May 22, 201510 yr by steve201

Considering we have come full swing back to the early 20th century in terms of political and economic thinking the liberals could easily stake a claim to being the opposition again but the coalition destroyed that chance and has put them back to the 1960s in terms of seats. labour must renew this mantle now or someone else will come along.

This paragraph is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

 

We haven't gone back to the early 20th century on political and economic thinking (does racism and worship for the aristocracy predominate? are we engaged in constant debate over tariff reform and protectionism? are we at a point where we're debating whether women should have the vote and whether pensions are a step too far for welfare? are we focused on the RISING MILITARY THREAT of Germany and how all of our spending should be focused on building up our navy, and all the while the House of Lords should really be predominating? should our economic focus be on developing the empire or industry?). This type of hyperbole is useless in terms of moving us forward.

The Lib Dems could soon be down to 7 MPs. Alistair Carmichael is in hot water for leaking that alleged Nicola Sturgeon memo, and the SNP are demanding a by-election.

The Lib Dems could soon be down to 7 MPs. Alistair Carmichael is in hot water for leaking that alleged Nicola Sturgeon memo, and the SNP are demanding a by-election.

They can demand all they want. I can't see them succeeding.

I'm pretty sure what Alistair Carmichael did was *literally* illegal, so...

Yes, and because of his outright LIES he has cost the UK taxpayer around £1 million in wasted money on an inquiry into the leak.

 

Well done him.

I never understand how the money racks up so quickly with these inquiries.

What did Carmichael actually do? Doesn't surprise me the SNP want a by election lol

This paragraph is wrong on so many levels I don't know where to begin.

 

We haven't gone back to the early 20th century on political and economic thinking (does racism and worship for the aristocracy predominate? are we engaged in constant debate over tariff reform and protectionism? are we at a point where we're debating whether women should have the vote and whether pensions are a step too far for welfare? are we focused on the RISING MILITARY THREAT of Germany and how all of our spending should be focused on building up our navy, and all the while the House of Lords should really be predominating? should our economic focus be on developing the empire or industry?). This type of hyperbole is useless in terms of moving us forward.

 

:o relax I was just giving my take and it wasn't hyperbole.

 

Obv all the examples you have are correct examples of how things aren't exactly the same but it would be rather odd if they were but I was talking generally and mainly about political and economics similarities and especially about the left right politics of the main political parties in the uk - mainly focusing on how mid century Keynesianism and nationalisation dominated democratic socialism and their debates in comparison to the 1870-1945 period and we have moved back to these economic methods hence the name neo-liberalism for today's economics system. So I was trying to show that the Labour Party have had to move towards making this method of capitalism fairer for vulnerable people whereas under the 1945-73 economic system they played by their rules essentially as it allowed for public ownership.

The Lib Dems could soon be down to 7 MPs. Alistair Carmichael is in hot water for leaking that alleged Nicola Sturgeon memo, and the SNP are demanding a by-election.

 

I may be talking based on misinformation here but....

 

Freedom Of Information Act? Unless it was a fabrication. Was it? Appears to be 3rd party interpretation of conversations that took place.. Goes against political protocol, but I see anything said on or off the record anywhere by any politician, as long it's not putting the country in danger militarily or likewise in the national interest to remain secret, should be made public. I know every email I send at work is subject to FOI Act, and every letter, and everything I say. Don't see why politicians should in any way be exempt, protocol or not. They serve the public as much as any scummy local gov worker.

 

Don't want it on the record, don't say it. To anyone.

Everyone involved in that actual meeting denied that conversation even happened. There is no reason the French Consulate General would lie about that.

 

It's a fabrication and I fully support the calls for a by-election to replace him. Time to wipe the LibDems off the political map of Scotland :cheer:

Everyone involved in that actual meeting denied that conversation even happened. There is no reason the French Consulate General would lie about that.

Interesting you say that. Quietly, the biggest bomb in the leak inquiry was that the Cabinet Secretary found the civil servant who spoke to the French Consul General accurately reported the conversation. I'd kind of trust the leak inquiry over what was convenient to say publicly both for the French Consul General and for Nicola - there very much *is* a reason for the Consulate General to lie about it, as it's kind of massively embarrassing for any diplomatic corps to end up as the story rather than the eyes and ears, as it gets in the way of the whole, y'know, diplomatic niceties thing in future.

I may be talking based on misinformation here but....

 

Freedom Of Information Act? Unless it was a fabrication. Was it? Appears to be 3rd party interpretation of conversations that took place.. Goes against political protocol, but I see anything said on or off the record anywhere by any politician, as long it's not putting the country in danger militarily or likewise in the national interest to remain secret, should be made public. I know every email I send at work is subject to FOI Act, and every letter, and everything I say. Don't see why politicians should in any way be exempt, protocol or not. They serve the public as much as any scummy local gov worker.

 

Don't want it on the record, don't say it. To anyone.

Yeah, that isn't really how the Freedom of Information Act works, regardless of your interpretation.

Interesting you say that. Quietly, the biggest bomb in the leak inquiry was that the Cabinet Secretary found the civil servant who spoke to the French Consul General accurately reported the conversation. I'd kind of trust the leak inquiry over what was convenient to say publicly both for the French Consul General and for Nicola.

They also said that there was an element that was 'lost in translation'.

 

Like I said, the French consulate would have no reason to deny the story if it was true. They could have stayed silent implying that there was something to the story but they came out publicly and said the contents were false.

 

Carmichael has also said the memo was incorrect.

They also said that there was an element that was 'lost in translation'.

No, the precise write-up by the civil servant was that it was such a bombshell of a quote that it could be the case that something was lost in translation. Which would be difficult, given the Ambassador and Consul General are fluent in English.

 

Like I said, the French consulate would have no reason to deny the story if it was true. They could have stayed silent implying that there was something to the story but they came out publicly and said the contents were false.

 

Carmichael has also said the memo was incorrect.

You replied before I could edit in, but to repeat: there very much *is* a reason for the Consulate General to lie about it, as it's kind of massively embarrassing for any diplomatic corps to end up as the story and be seen to be breaching confidence, regardless of whether or not that breach of confidence is convention.

 

Carmichael's just trying to protect his arse by minimising the memo - as the mere leaker who just had it land on his desk he's not really an authority on what went down, whereas the leak inquiry has just spent a good month *becoming* that authority. He's doing what he can to try and keep his job and avoid the Lib Dems reaching a new low.

yes, I live in one. And I do. And it wouldn't be.....

 

What they gonna do not vote Lib dem again because of a pact with labour? The worst has already happened there is no down for the libdems, there is only up. The Libdem party will never again go in to a coalition with the right-wing (it would destroy them), so by a process of elimination that leaves only Labour (and which better reflects it's grass roots supporters as opposed to casual voters). The pressure is all on Labour, Libdems can just sit quietly back and wait for whoever is chosen to lead the party for 3 years (such trust in the candidates! Voters will be well impressed!) to watch the polls. Assuming they are correct, of course..

 

My guess is labour will need every friend it can muster.

The Lib Dems undoubtedly have far less to lose from a pact, but they're also in no position to negotiate. The two parties' potential voters are too different to reconcile, it might have worked better in 2010.