[Closed] Hand wringing Guardian reader (me) - when do we admit the Tories failed?

>At what point do the Tories have the good grace to concede they’ve failed?

By their own measure (the wealth of the top 0.1%) they have been a massive success. They haven't given a shit about anyone else since the 80s.

I'd do that. Not sure about the benevolent bit though.

We already have a benevolent dictator. He's called Cougar.

Your problem is in your op. Two party system that is only presenting bad options.

They have never succeeded. No change, verminous in 1948 and verminous now.

That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation. Now the Tories are pouring out money in propaganda of all sorts and are hoping by this organised sustained mass suggestion to eradicate from our minds all memory of what we went through.

A Tory admitting they are “wrong”?

Never gonna a’ppen...

The Tories know they are failing. It's been reported that the 1922 committee has received "over 40" of the required 48 letters from MPs to force a leadership contest. And Boris is definitely lining himself up. Not sure changing the leader at this point will do much

Maybe now is the time to get behind the Lib Dems.

@Zippykona - if only the Lib Dems were a realistic prospect, and not serial sell-outs (see Scotland early on in the life of Holyrood, and then again 2010)

What do they want? Progressive change! When do they want it? In due course....

It's a source of morbid fascination for me that people still vote for them, what more do they have to do? We've had seven and a half years of everything being Labour's fault (including Carillion's demise according to Chris Grayling and IDS), but short of your Tory MP turning up and defecating on your doorstep they seem to be able to say and do whatever they like.

Honestly, I have several Conservative friends who express amazement at this situation.

>They have never succeeded.

Not really true at all. Just been reading "Five Giants", a biography of the welfare state, and for many years Labour and the Tories outbid each other each election on how much they would spend on the welfare state, with each often enacting the previous administrations policies as the government flipped between Tories and Labour. It's only mid to late 80s that they seem to really start demonising segments of society.

<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px;">

By their own measure (the wealth of the top 0.1%) they have been a massive success. They haven’t given a shit about anyone else since the 80s.

</span>

I was about to make the same point, I'm sure they think they're doing a cracking job thank you very much.

If they could just privatise the NHS a bit quicker, defund the the police a bit more so they can put that i the hands of G4S and then do the same for the fire service, that will make their corporate chums even happier!

I'm no Tory, but (and I don't blame Labour for this) they took over at a time of unprecedented economic turmoil. We were more indebted than any other time in history, our only big financial sector was in crisis, we were fighting two protracted, unpopular and unwinable wars. There was no easy or nice way out of it, if Labour have held power no doubt they would have done it differently but we'd be here moaning about different but equally painful problems.

Brexit is their fault no doubt, but you can't ignore the will of the people forever and Labour were just as keen to blame the EU for unpopular legislation when it suited and you cannot deny they fought for Remain tooth and nail whilst Labour did the square root of SFA either because of deep seated protectionist feelings and/or plain old fashioned politics of letting the Tories lose.

Maybe now UKIP is finally dead they'll bring this Brexit disaster back from the brink, or just remain in all but name.

You could say the same thing about Trump in the US. Despite all the brouhaha, he still has a very solid core of support.

@BillOddie - probably true, but so profoundly dis-spiriting 🙁

Governments have been incompetent for decades, if not forever.

Post-Brexit they are talking about initiatives to strengthen industry and create jobs.  Why the F weren't they doing that before?  Don't tell me EU rules prevented them doing anything.

Given the Tory's evangelical zeal to make the rich richer, punish the poor for being  poor, and privatising everything in sight, I'd say they probably think its all going rather well at the moment

As for a benevolent dictator... the one who fitted that role perfectly died yesterday 🙁

"Brexit is their fault no doubt, but you can’t ignore the will of the people forever and Labour were just as keen to blame the EU for unpopular legislation when it suited and you cannot deny they fought for Remain tooth and nail whilst Labour did the square root of SFA either because of deep seated protectionist feelings and/or plain old fashioned politics of letting the Tories lose."

As much as it pains me as a Labour voter, this is very true. Specifically, I recall that the fuel taxes were blamed on the EU, as was pretty much everything else unpopular at the time.

Unfortunately, these mistruths accumulate and if you throw in a bit of plain old British anti-immigrant sentiment, some social media posts about light bulbs and hairdryers, oddly-shaped bananas (or was it cucumbers?), Turkey and a phantom pan-European army, you get the current state of affairs.

I never imagined in a million years that I'd ever have cause to write Michael Hezeltine a thank you letter, nor did I imagine that I'd get a very kind response. It's a shame that the rest of his party have become third-rate Brexit evangelist throwbacks to an imperial past that never really existed.

"<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: #444444;">It’s a source of morbid fascination for me that people still vote for them"</span>

My theory is: a kind of snobbery. Voting tory is seen by some people as the 'better class' vote. A bit like these asschins who believe there's a hierarchy of class attached to what supermarket one shops in. Or the sort that grew up saying 'bath', but have trained themselves to now say 'barth'.

I have a family member who seemed to be proud to be voting tory at the last go around. Even though she was on benefits due to a bad accident... the phrase 'turkeys voting for christmas' springs to mind.

Mind you, I can't talk. I hate them both and have never voted. The labour years felt like a police state. Bloody police helicopter over my house every night. At least when the torys are in there's generally better music around.

On radio 4 yesterday they explained how PMQ's is no longer PMQ's. After being asked about the NHS or something, Theresa May just read out a prepared script about Labours flip-flopping position on tuition fees, which within minutes was uploaded to Facebook etc.. for people to share.

Here in Cheam it used to be a lib seat.

However at the last election we know people that voted tory ro keep Corbyn out.

People are either voting against may or against Corbyn.

It's really a who is least hated competition.

Similar to jambourgie above, I know a number of people who vote tory because only rich people vote that way and they want people to think they are rich... All the actual wealthy people I know vote for ukip.

Zippykona has it.

Voting FOR something is more powerful than voting against it.  People need something/someone to vote FOR.

Much as I support the LibDems and understand why Sir Nick entered coalition with the Tories, I can't help but wonder what would've happened in 2015 (and later Brexit) had the Liberals been untainted and there to give people a genuine alternative (change).

"At least when the torys are in there’s generally better music around."

Genuine LOL here.

"Voting FOR something is more powerful than voting against it. People need something/someone to vote FOR."

I think that's Corbyn's message, several of his policies chime with the times, more so than the current govt, but his performances at PMQs and his stance on Brexit are a huge irritation. He could and should be the most popular option by a country mile.

Aren't the Tories succeeding, by their measures? The poor are poorer and the rich are richer, the NHS is being lined up for privatisation, we're getting out of the Eu before they clamp down on tax avoidance...

It's a shame we don't have a functioning opposition party.

<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px; line-height: 15.36px; background-color: #eeeeee;">The <span style="text-decoration: underline;">news </span>today is quite awful</span>

Does anyone else think that the current state of what is called "news" doesnt help either, the constant rush for clicks, views,  likes, shares and comments  or something to get people angry or scaremonger?

I think even if a snap election was called and another party got in, the state of the world today means not much will be achieved in the long haul due to issues being blown up and demanding lots of time now?

.

cant see that youre averageTory voter cares much about it tho

Not strictly true. They do care that all these urchins and peasants are making 'their' streets look untidy. That doesn't extend to any empathy or even a modicum of concern for them, of course.

Hence them setting about demonising, then criminalising them. If they can't be killed, then surely at least they can be locked up?

The eternal question in politics (in England and Wales at least) isn't, "how shit a job are this lot doing?", but, "out of the two teams offered to us, which will do the lest shit job?"

On radio 4 yesterday they explained how PMQ’s is no longer PMQ’s. After being asked about the NHS or something, Theresa May just read out a prepared script about Labours flip-flopping position on tuition fees, which within minutes was uploaded to Facebook etc.. for people to share.

You don't remember what time/programme this was do you? I'd quite like to listen.

The Tories inherited a load of carp from Labour. The failing economy was during their dodgy reign.

<span style="color: #444444; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: #eeeeee;"> the wave of hope and optimism swept the UK (much like seems to be present in a booming global economy).</span>

Distinct whiff of “seen from afar” here. Don’t other places have their problems? I’m sure the U.K. looks pretty great from outside too (ok, maybe excluding Brexit!)

when do we admit the Tories failed?

Maybe it's the caffeine, but this feels like quite a nuanced question. I'm not a Tory voter but would happily admit that Cameron and Osborne did run the country reasonably well for a while. They weren't beholden to cretins like BoJo for power, and while they were elitist toffs, they at least knew something about how to be politicians.
Unfortunately, they had no clue about people, hence the Brexit referendum.

Everything since that decision has been an utter ****show. The problem is that there isn't an alternative for the reasonable liberal middle class voter. Corbyn is clearly very used to opposition (so can make massive claims confident he'll never be held to account); but more than that he's just not a political leader, and he's surrounded himself by other non-leaders.
As on HIGNFY a few weeks back:
(Hislop) "What's the Labour Party's stance on Brexit?"
"I think you'll find we've been very clear on our stance"
"OK, but what is it?"
(another non-answer).
And the Lib Dems sadly are just nothing right now, and likely to be nothing for at least 2 more election cycles.

It's enough to make one vote for the Monster Raving Loony Party

Didn’t it all go wrong recently with Cameroooooon the nut!

I can’t see why the people aren’t able to employ a decent enough philanthropic like Oprah in the US of A.

Maybe someone like David Attenborough for prime minister with people around him who actually live in the real workd who care for the way this and other countries are evolving.

Now I see why USA voted Trump due to wanting radical change as even if politics should be slow & steady progress, it just gets to the point where radical dramatic improvement in policies needs acting upon and that has waaaaayy gone past an age ago already.

just a waffling 2p view

Labour were in power during the banking crisis and as such had the choice of doing nothing or pumping enough money into the system to keep it afloat. Post 2010 meanwhile, the timeframe of the Conservatives' promise to balance the deficit has slipped from 2015 to somewhere after 2025, during which time there were originally planned to be a number of cuts to Corporation Tax and Income Tax - the latter has been shelved. Debt as a proportion of GDP has dramatically increased under the Conservatives: "General government deficit in the financial year ending March 2016, the UK government deficit (net borrowing) was £76.6 billion (4.1% of GDP). This represents a decrease of £17.8 billion since the financial year ending March 2015, and is the lowest value as a percentage of GDP since the financial year ending March 2008 when it was 3.0% of GDP (£45.8 billion). However, the deficit remains above the Maastricht reference value of 3.0%."

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicspending/bulletins/ukgovernmentdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/aprtojune2016

I'll leave any speculation as to how quickly the deficit and public debt could be cleared if we joined the EU in clamping down on tax avoidance to speculation, however a cleared deficit would fuel public demands for increasing public spending again which is most definitely not ideologically acceptable to the Conservatives.

I never thought I'd ever defend New Labour's public record, I've been hugely critical of New Labour in the past - even as a member of the Labour Party myself these days, I'm vehemently anti-New Labour. I guess that it serves to illustrate just how piss-poor the current mob are.

Lots of opprobrium for the Tories (and also disdain for Labour). I have some faith in people left.

I wonder if @jambalya and @teamhurtmore and the others on the right (misnomer if ever there was) on the Brexit thread will tell us proles why we are too dumb to see the magnificence of how the Tories are "governing".

HoratioHufnagel Member
On radio 4 yesterday they explained how PMQ’s is no longer PMQ’s. After being asked about the NHS or something, Theresa May just read out a prepared script about Labours flip-flopping position on tuition fees, which within minutes was uploaded to Facebook etc.. for people to share.

This summary misses out about half of the piece (which was on PM, finbar).

According to the section Theresa May's grandstanding non-answer was designed to be uploaded and shared on social media as a generic anti-Labour soundbite. However it was in response to a grandstanding non-question from Jeremy Corbyn that was apparently also intended to be shared on social media as a generic anti-Tory/government soundbite.

Both of them are at it and grandstanding non-questions and non-answers seem to have been a staple of PMQs long before modern social media became a thing. Corbyn did initially try a different tack but it didn't appear to be particularly successful so he's gone back to the tried and tested tactic of slinging insults. That's the way to do it!

"You don’t remember what time/programme this was do you? I’d quite like to listen."

I heard it as well and IIRC it was on PM, @ about 17:40 ish.

"They do care that all these urchins and peasants are making ‘their’ streets look untidy. That doesn’t extend to any empathy or even a modicum of concern for them, of course."

To be honest I don't believe the majority of Tory voters even see a correlation between their votes and increase in homelessness, etc. I think a lot of Tory voters do so because

a. they've always done it

b. their family has always done it so why should they be any different.

editied to remove the shite formatting

I'm in the same boat as the OP, the cumulative weight of evidence is all pointing to one inescapable conclusion - It is time to stop reading the Guardian.

Personally this will be a hard step to take for various reasons. But the comical [literally] re-design could be the shove required.

FWIW, I'm apparently the first member of my family in five generations who has never voted Conservative!

"<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: #444444;">Labour were in power during the banking crisis and as such had the choice of doing nothing or pumping enough money into the system to keep it afloat."</span>

Absolutely, I thought a lot about Blair and Brown and the economic crisis. I wouldn't try to work out which of the two was to blame for the bad any more than who was to blame for the good, but you can't blame ether of them for 9/11 or causing the credit crunch - that was a bunch of crooks in the US.

Thatcher was the step change, greed became socially acceptable and social responsibility reduced to the individual.

Blair simply built on it and now we have a brainwashed electorate that thinks victimising poor people is acceptable.

It took the best part of 40 years to get here, it usually takes three times the effort to fix something that is broken - so in 140 years it will all be dandy..

Garry_Lager has it - time to figure out a robust news and media avoidance strategy.

And oldmanmtb has the most depressing post of the day 🙁

Things were always going to get worse post financial crisis no matter who was in power.

One general point, just because you voted for a party that doesn't mean you actively endorse everything they do. So you can vote Tory and not be happy about rising homelesness, and similarly you could have voted Labour and been unhappy with the Iraq War. Thing is you have to determine, exactly how you weigh up the parties pros and cons and vote accordingly. If a party strays too far down a line then they generally get punished at the ballot box, and that's where Labour are now. I'm sure in time they'll get back in, as these things go in cycles.

This is the worst goverment I can recall. However its also the worst opposition.

The fact that May still clings to power and that Gove and Johnson still have careers shows how poor the political landscape is at the moment. That's not to say that Labour are any better, they aren't. There is no political middle ground and I genuinely feel that there is no party deserving of my vote. Dragon mentioned that you don't have to actively endorse everything a party stands for in order to vote for them and this is very true. However I find it profoundly depressing that there is NO party that I can realistically vote for.

Same time that Labour admit that they would be no better.

Please remember that this is politics that we are talking about. The only difference is that the Tories are rather more honest in that at times they say that they see capitalism as the way forward. Labour not only cannot do any better but pretend that they can through huge amounts of hypocritical cobblers. Was about of noise about sharing it all but what they mean is " some one else can share theirs but I'm keeping mine". How many socialists take that first step by handing over their property to, lets say , the homeless. Bugger all I bet.

When it boils down to it , neither side will sort these problems out because the individuals are too selfish to start the ball rolling.

"<span style="color: #444444;"> </span><span style="color: #444444;">However I find it profoundly depressing that there is NO party that I can realistically vote for."</span>

Same here, I decided to vote Plaid in the last election, not for any real nationalistic reason, I've no love for an independent Wales, but they're 'Socially aware capitalists" (aka New Labour) at heart and very pro-EU, but they were never going to win my seat.

A few days before the election a rep of our proposed Labour MP knocked on my door, they promised that Labour would fight Brexit, or at very least ensure that we would 'leave' whilst retaining the same sort of relationship with the EU so I voted like I had in every previous election for Labour - she won, over-turning a Tory which pleased me - but the Tories still managed to hold onto power (just) and since what's the Labour party done about Brexit? SFA as they did on the lead up to the vote.

I have to accept that the Tories and the Lib Dems are the only real pro-EU national parties. Labour, or at least this version of it, is at it's core Anti-EU and why wouldn't they be? Dennis Skinner the most left of centre MP is rabidly Anti-EU and Anti-Immigration and Corbin, despite all his fluffy PR is politically in the same camp, he just doesn't have the principles to be honest about it, the best he can do is offer a few placating words around maintain workers right post-brexit - truthfully his version of a socialist utopia for the UK involves a low-value £ and a return to factories up and down the country and closed borders so 'cheap' workers from other countries can't under-cut us.

The fact that May still clings to power and that Gove and Johnson still have careers shows how poor the political landscape is at the moment.

The unfortunate thing we are seeing at the moment is a distinct lack of talent in politics. People like May and Corbyn are career politicians, and as such will carry on doing what they are doing regardless of how disastrous their "policies" are, May at the home office, now as PM demonstrates this.

Some people don't like the idea of "conviction politicians" maybe because the most recent one was Tony Blair, but as mentioned earlier in the thread, voters are voting for their least hated option which is not a good sign at all.

We only need to look to France to see how someone with some conviction can become a leader in a short space of time.

Reading through the above. Some one says that greed is socially acceptable. This is why people want what they cannot afford and borrow to buy luxuries.*

Serves them right if stupidity creates debt.

* A TV is a luxury, so is a phone, fags, booze or a bike that is any better than what is needed to get you to work and back.

Now lets see. Of course none of this applies to the labour supporter who is a hard working underdog who barely survives the winter, shivering in a slum and feeding their kids bread.

<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px;">Some one says that greed is socially acceptable. This is why people want what they cannot afford</span>

Hmm not exactly...

<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px;">Of course none of this applies to the labour supporter who is a hard working underdog who barely survives the winter, shivering in a slum and feeding their kids bread.</span>

Well, that's patent nonsense. Any self-respecting champagne socialist (I think the real target of your ire, like me) has long since realised that bread is bad for you and cut it from the Ocado order.

FFS.

Why does the right (again, what a misnomer) persist with this bizarre view of the world that says to care for one's fellow planet inhabitants is equivalent to wishing to live in poverty or equates to sacrificing everything they own. The Scandinavian countries are not without their difficulties (i.e. they are not utopia) but they seem to manage socially aware capitalism very well, thank you.

We should all be a bit more Scandi.

@mattsccm:

I have to take issue with you posting about “the left” as some nameless entity whereby it’s easy to sling accusations of hypocrisy or whatnot. It’s not really helpful.

Hands up here, I’m probably guilty of being a champagne socialist of some form. My own views are that “we” a a society ate too focussed on those who enjoy privilege, at the expense of those who don’t. The scales have tipped too far and I believe they need to be rebalanced. My parents enjoyed a high standard of living in middle age because they were elevated from working class backgrounds by post war Labour policies. They don’t see it that way, but they both bemoan the rampant unfairness of post 1979 Britain, even though they’re on the right of the political spectrum.

I’m off to enjoy some smashed avocado and prosecco now...

Thanks all - lots of R4 listeners on the thread, surprise surprise 😀 !

<span style="color: #444444; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: #eeeeee;">My parents enjoyed a high standard of living in middle age because they were elevated from working class backgrounds by post war Labour policies. </span>

Or possibly demographics and economics?

In that case, there were a lot of demographics and economics in the 1950s/60s.

No student debt of £48k and 6% interest either. Affordable housing too.

It's testament to how strong the newspaper's echo about what an appalling job Labour did on the economy - bar a global rescission - were actually doing a decent job. The fact that the Tories capitalised on the debt/deficit saga like the brexit campaign proved those with best marketing agency won.

Rather than the truth.

Good job no one is arguing that these muppets should be controlling/running more of the economy

remember nationalisation back in the day 😉  ?

I’d like to see government nationalised, thanks. The sooner it’s separated from corporate cash, the better IMHO.

And Nationalised entities don’t have to be crap - not every worldwide state owned business is as awful as British Leyland or Lucas.

What do we expect? there are 9.2 million people foreign born people now living in the U.K. - do you really expect that not have some form of effect on housing, income, the NHS, schools or crime?

To take the OP’s first example - homelessness. Over half of London’s rough sleepers are foreign nationals (GLA/CHAIN data)

A major contributor over the past feW years has been the growing representation of Central and Eastern European (CEE) nationals among London’s rough sleepers. Since 2010/11 the number of CEE London rough sleepers has grown by 182 per cent,

remember nationalisation back in the day 😉  ?

We are no longer living back in the day.

What I see now is that we currently send money to foreign governments who run some of our services for their state benefit.

Why would we give the benefit to them when we could retain it ? EDF and the likes of Abellio etc.

Now that's muppetry of the first order, pimping out contracts to state ownership of other countries. You can't make it up.

If foreign governments want to subsidise us by investing in low return projects that’s fine by me. The more the merrier. The xenophobes might not agree

I realised  that in 1974.

Probably never. People have their own preconceived world views, and even when there is irrefutable evidence to the contrary are too stupid, egocentric, or lack critical thinking / mental capacity and merely continue down the path that satisfies their bigoted beliefs.

....and people are ****s.

I am sure if anyone walked into my life they would judge me as a champagne socialist, however the reason I have a lump of property, land and a business is because at 20 years old unemployed and on the bones of my arse living in my parents tied agricultural house I worked out that all the folks who were not affected by 1983 and Thatchers world had an education, property or a business. So I set about getting those things to protect myself - not to be like them.

Just because you appear to be something does not make you something...

Ninfan did you just come out of the UKIP closet?

It's funny really.

If left wing activists want to carry on their approach of insulting and aggressively shit mouthing people going about their lawful day-to-day life. Don't be surprised if we have our own Donald Trump style backlash from those that don't want be to dictated too.

Expecting people on mass to respond to reason and facts won't happen! Never has as long as I've been alive. 9 times out of 10, on mass we get a lurch to the right, not the left in times of perceived crisis.

A change of approach would be wise IMO. Perhaps adopting the effective silent majority tactics used against them!

Most British people IME are two faced, with a liberal public persona (to keep things polite) which relates little to their real views. They jump on any bandwagon (often exploited) to prevent/stall change they don't want, get little victories over their neighbours and people they don't like.

Looking forward to the government sorting out problems they have created with good old fashioned crack downs and justice, yawn, we have been here before.

The electorate like to be lied to and find the truth difficult to understand.

I remember the last time Labour were in power, the camaraderie in the half-mile queue for the job centre was almost blitz like in spirit.

I'm no fan of the tories, but do get irritated when the well off try and tell me I was better off under those conditions

Nothing like getting told by a champagne socialist that as one of the poorer members of society you're being selfish by not being pro-labour.

Do I have to be a *disabled half black bisexual Jew on benefits before I have the right to be better off?

Partisan politics are for the dim of thought.

*This is a trap, don't walk into it.

I just couldn't vote Tory.

Seen too many people directly impacted by their policies. Particularly in recent years.

The deaths and despair caused by a criminally underfunded NHS and completely decimated mental health system alone are enough to ensure I couldn't sleep if I voted for them.

If foreign governments want to subsidise us by investing in low return projects that’s fine by me. <

That would be completely ignoring the fact that the public would probably enjoy much lower bills.

Chestercopperpot wins best post(s) closet facists the lot of us...

I still don't understand peoples general dismissal of the Lib Dems.

I agree that they have had to make compromises in the past, as a junior partner in a coalition, but here we are on a thread discussing how shit Labour and the Tories are, and yet the middle ground option- that seems to be a option that would suit a lot of peoples beliefs on here - are being discounted out of hand.

Are the Lib Dems perceived transgressions any worse than the actual transgressions of L & C ?

It seems to me that Lib Dems are scorned by the 'left' for getting into bed with the Tories, and derided by the right as being too left wing, but IMHO the LD's occupy the middle ground of British politics that L & C were fighting over for a decade.

I'm honestly baffled as to why they are not bigger than they are.

-opens the  floodgates for - you're so naive type comments.......

<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px; background-color: #eeeeee;">Hands up here, I’m probably guilty of being a champagne socialist of some form</span>

I've never understood this as an insult. It means someone who's well off but wants to see policies that help those poorer than them, possibly at the expense of wealthier people like themselves.

If you want the same policies as a 'champagne socialist' but you're poor then the 'politics of envy' line gets wheeled out.  It's just a way to attack the person suggesting a policy without addressing the policy itself.

As someone else said, years ago parties were trying to win voters by saying how much they'd spend on public services.  Now it's all about lowering tax and to hell with the consequences (NHS A&E waiting times, homelessness, social care on the verge of collapse).

The problem with politicians is that they're all unqualified to do the job.

The only criteria to becoming an MP is to get people to vote for you, and the best way to do that is to bribe them and lie to them.  Normally they lie about the bribe as well.

Having said that, I'm a (not particularly engaged) member of a political party as it's the system we've got and it's better to engage with that system than to froth impotently.

<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px;">I agree that they have had to make compromises in the past, as a junior partner in a coalition</span>

Because they were utterly incompetent at it. They failed on all their big issues, especially electoral reform.

<span style="color: #444444; font-size: 12.8px;">but IMHO the LD’s occupy the middle ground of British politics that L & C were fighting over for a decade.</span>

It goes back to this myth of the "middle ground". The two problems with it are a)there are lots of different middle grounds. Economics, social policy, policing and so on and b)its not fixed.

The "middle ground" can also be shifted if one party chases another. So the current middle ground is fairly hard right economically for example. Look at the USA and whats considered "middle ground" there.

Also there arent that many votes in the middle ground at least not in a concentrated way (see Libdems failed electoral reform problem).

Labour and Tories werent chasing the middle ground because thats where the most voters are they were chasing it because thats where the swing voters were.

Its a subtle but important distinction. Since it relies on the traditional party base remaining loyal and not thinking sod this for a game of soldiers and finding someone else to vote for or just giving up on the process.