[Closed] The Lib Dems and British political tribalism

A very strong and stable question.....goddamit!

FPTP is the problem

Because they're liars, and sell their "principles" to the highest bidder.

(eg Alistair Carmichael, student fees etc)

So no different from the other parties.

I mean, they aren't nasty

really ? Quite prepared to prop up a minority tory government. Vote lib get Tory.

Not really sure.
They were punished for no reason for doing a good job as a minor partner in a coalition.
They got the increase in tax free allowance started, which is an excellent policy and now continuing without them, and they stopped the conservatives doing some more rightist stuff that they have indulged in since.
I'll be voting for LD, and luckily enough i'm in a seat where that may actually count for something.
Agree with @kormoran, think they'd do much better outside a FPTP system.

really ? Quite prepared to prop up a minority tory government. Vote lib get Tory.

Sorry, but horseshit. That's just way too simplistic an answer, and reflects an incredibly blinkered understanding of how it is a multi-party must inevitably work when in a minority situation.

In Canada, not only is there a national parliament, but each individual province has one too - for the most part with the same party make-up. Consequently, I have seen more than one political coalition, and when the smaller coalition partner lends its voice to the larger, compromises need to be made. That's just the way it is. In fact, I think that the Tories would have been far more 'nasty' without their liberal partners than they were in the last parliament.

I always voted for the Lib dems, so difficult for me to objectively deconstruct there lack of westminster presence. however the biggest questions facing the nation since i started voting imo, the war in iraq, and the financial crisis, the libs have been on the right side of the argument. I remeber Vince cable pushing Brown on the property bubble on several occasions.
Weird how some people start spitting with anger over the student fees fiasco, yet happily vote Labour, who introduced them.

Vote lib get Tory

Despite subsequent evidence that the Lib Dem part of the coalition reined in some of the Tory excess that has since come out?

I agree that the marginalisation of the Lib Dems is a bit odd - originally of course there was only the Liberal and Tory parties before the Labour movement came about relatively recently in historical terms.

I'm not sure what they have to do - everyone seems to hate the Tories, everyone seems to like Labour but not enough to vote for them, the Lib Dems should be reclaiming lost ground.

I do wonder if the age of the Interweb argument has made everything completely black and white - or in this case, red and blue. No one seems to have the concept of a grey area, a middle ground, a compromise, like tuition fees (a Labour government invention, of course). Everything has to be all or nothing for people these days, which could be seen as idealistic, or could be tribal. A sensible middle ground acknowledging both sides of the problem would be nice to have, I believe.

MoreCashThanDash, you cast the question better than I have. Cheers.

The issue with the LibDems isn't about FPTP because at perhaps 8% of the vote they're irrelevant anyway. The problem is that they have proved themselves turncoat scum that will do anything for a sniff of power and/or a ministerial car.

I heard Tim Farron on the radio yesterday and pretty much his policies seemed the be "we will tell you anything you want to hear if you'll vote for us".

Why do the British not take the Lib Dems more seriously?

Forget the current leader, or the supposed self-betrayal in their 'u-turn' on tuition fees

FPTP is the problem

It is, and yet when the LDs say that it's seen as a party political issue.

Both the other main parties have had opportunities to sort the electoral system they haven't taken (in one case, having promised in their manifesto they'd do it).

Another problem is that, unlike the Tories or Labour (or, I suppose, the SNP or Plaid) there is no LD 'core vote' and there's a certain amount of evidence that the party does better when an election isn't seen as close between the main two parties, and vice versa.

DOI: both a Lib Dem and a member of the ERS.

Would that be a reference to the u-turn on tuition fees that means graduates will save £600 a year?

MONEY! Its that simple LD get no money in comparison to the Troy or Lab. Spending during last 4 general elections...

Con : £63M
Lab : £49M
LD : £14M
UKIP : £5M

They just aren't in the same spending league. And because of that, lots of high flying wannabes wont go near them. So they dont get the same sort of talent. I'll wager the ratio of Oxbridge members directly mirrors that spending list.

As a few have already ably demonstrated I'm not sure the British public are quite sophisticated enough to appreciate the complexities of the coalition government. With the current electoral system that's the best anyone who votes LD in a constituency election can expect in a national context. They would have to get enough critical mass behind them that they looked like they had a had sniff of an overall victory before the more 'rustic' of our voting brethren would give them the time of day.

In terms of Scotland, they have a leader that is so cringeworthy that he makes wee Kezia Dugdale seem competent by comparison.

In principle, I should vote LD, in reality I don't, and can't see me doing so.

In terms of Scotland, they have a leader that is so cringeworthy that he makes wee Kezia Dugdale seem competent by comparison.

Jo Swinson seems very sensible though.

As a few have already ably demonstrated I'm not sure the British public are quite sophisticated enough to appreciate the complexities of the coalition government.

Lovely phraseology!

The student loan thing was forced on them by George Osborne.

He was the one who set the budget for the Education department (or whatever it was called) such that they had no choice but to choose between cutting primary school funding or student loan funding, or bailing out of the coalition and potentially crashing the economy.

I'm not sure the British public are quite sophisticated enough

Must be more sophisticated than the majority of the USA public, just for letting Old Trumpy Custard Brains get this far.

I'll be voting Lib Dem up here in Durham. Always been Liberal in my views. Yes I know Farron comes across as a bit of a plonker. The Conservatives couldn't give a damn about the NE and Labour just take us for granted as a done deal vote wise. I'm voting Labour cos me Stone Age ancestors did b@llocks. You've got to look after the less fortunate in society but it helps if you're prepared to work for a living and contribute.

Must be more sophisticated than the majority of the USA public, just for letting Old Trumpy Custard Brains get this far.

No matter how unfair FPTP is, or how wrong it is to have an appointed/hereditary upper chamber (with bishops!) in the 21st century, the one thing we [b]can[/b] say is that the Americans have it worse.

Unfortunately for the LD and for the British public I do not know the answer

[quote=Junkyard ]

Why do the British not take the Lib Dems more seriously?
Forget the current leader, or the supposed self-betrayal in their 'u-turn' on tuition fees

or maybe you just did. I'll let you think about it, but you know my views on the changes to tuition fees under the coalition government and also my views on the attitudes of other people (who supposedly would otherwise vote Lib Dem) to those changes.

I'm voting Lib Dem BTW

I'll be voting Lib Dem up here in Durham.

If it wasn't for the Con/Lib coalition we wouldn't have had the opportunity to vote on electoral reform. A referendum which demonstrated the sheer idiocy of the majority of the British people.

I am not sure exactly what Lib Dems stand for tbh ... Save the world? Save mankind? What? What they are trying to save? 😆

slowoldman - Member
If it wasn't for the Con/Lib coalition we wouldn't have had the opportunity to vote on electoral reform. A referendum which demonstrated the sheer idiocy of the majority of the British people.

@chewkw: You touch on precisely one of things I was trying to get at.

Parties generally represent an ideology. So, the Conservatives are built on a philosophical foundation of classical conservatism, both in economic and social terms. Labour is built on a trade unionist, 19th century socialist foundation. And the Lib Dems are meant to represent classical liberalism.

As with EVERY PARTY ON EARTH, their respective policies will only ever imperfectly reflect these foundations; but the parties still represent an [I]idea[/I], even when their policies at any given time fail to.

That is why I am genuinely so puzzled about the lack of support for the Lib Dems. I mean, in spite of all the talk on here about people being 'lefties', I would guess that in fact, most people on here are pretty normal liberals. But this does not seem to be reflected politically.

Very valid points, all of them. I think it would be in all of our interests too have a valid, credible third choice. I think many aren't particularly voting [i]for[/i] a party as much as against one.

Lim dems do terribly under fptp
[img] [/img]

Nobeerinthefridge - Member
In terms of Scotland, they have a leader that is so cringeworthy that he makes wee Kezia Dugdale seem competent by comparison.

In principle, I should vote LD, in reality I don't, and can't see me doing so.

They used to do well in Scotland when they had Home Rule in their policy.

People vote for winners.
Simple statement but in reality they do, the Lib Dems needed to prove that they could win before enough people would vote for them. Yes FPTP doesn't help but it is the system in play.
The previous accusations were that they could make up nice policy as the chances of implementing it were slim to none.
What people saw as abandoning principles was IMHO a very noble attempt to bring the UK into the modern world and work together for the common good. As was mentioned above people seem stuck in black and white thinking where something can only be good or bad with no room in the middle. People need to learn to compromise in order to get something done - Something that Brexit will highlight to us.

The Lib Dems lost a lot of key talent at the last election and have not managed to rebuild.

I do wonder if the age of the Interweb argument has made everything completely black and white -

'Goodies vs baddies' is as old as the hills. The 'mediate/moderate' niche is a waste of ink if you're in the business of making money off the outrages of red vs blue. We are infantilizing. We are framing things in the schoolyard manner.

Whose 'side' are you on?

Freedom vs enslavement?
Hard work vs lazy commies?
heartless racists vs compassionate world citizens?
'Anything goes' homo-loving, terrorist-appeasing, jobless tree-hugging dirty hippies vs brown-people bombing, homophobic, greedy, polluting, corporate Bible-bots?

The 'left vs right' narrative has indeed appeared to enjoy an exponential bloom along with the expansion of blogs/social media. What I see is that we in the UK are becoming more USian. Politics as a spectator sport. Who do you back - the champions of humanity? Or the scumbags? Pick one. It really is shit IMHO.

The Lib Dems lost a lot of key talent at the last election and have not managed to rebuild.

This is also a factor.

I do wonder if the age of the Interweb argument has made everything completely black and white

Aye, and in the meantime people vote blindly for parties that don't best represent their views (which isn't me saying everyone should vote LD; I'm sure it was Adele who went on about being a dyed in the wool Lab voter, then expressed a load of Tory views); social media has become an echo chamber which makes compromise more difficult; and many, many people live in safe seats and are effectively disenfranchised.

Many people can compromise, they can also see a complete capitulation on your principles.

Clegg never needed to do what he chose to do of course its fair to judge them on this and trying to blame something other than their decisions for this is neither helpful nor accurate

It may be fair to say they are being judged more harshly but the tuition fee pledge and subsequent actions was indefensible

It may be fair to say they are being judged more harshly but the tuition fee pledge and subsequent actions was indefensible

Yeah, they should have just cut primary school teachers instead, and gone to 45 pupils to a class.

I'll be voting Lib Dem.

Many people can compromise, they can also see a complete capitulation on your principles.

Clegg never needed to do what he chose to do of course its fair to judge them on this and trying to blame something other than their decisions for this is neither helpful nor accurate

It may be fair to say they are being judged more harshly but the tuition fee pledge and subsequent actions was indefensible

I disagree..

[b]At the time[/b] it looked like coalition was the only way of providing a stable government in the midst of a financial crash, and there was no way (even without Brown) that Lab could've formed one.

[url= https://whatthehellhavethelibdemsdone.com/ ]The Lib Dems achieved a reasonable amount in government[/url], especially reining in the Tory right excess we've seen since 2015. But they were the junior partner in a coalition, which naturally meant they were going to have to compromise more.

Conceding on tuition fees was a mistake (especially without red lines on constitutional reform) and I don't think anyone would say otherwise, but show me a party that has never broken a manifesto pledge. What else did they do that was indefensible?

personally, I think that most folk in this country align themselves with a centre right standpoint, and that's largely the Conservatives. When they (the Tory party) get too right wing then they get slapped by a vote for Labour.

Some good points, especially that people vote for winners. If you're in a safe Con/Lab seat there's very little incentive to vote regardless of your chosen party - that's the main problem with FPTP, it kills involvement.

I've voted a mix of Conservative and Liberal all my life dependant on policy e.g. I voted for Chris Patton when Labour were in favour of unilateral nuclear disarmament.

[url= http://vfp.me/WNBZ8nQSYvZ2swuNu ]This[/url] site (Vote for Policies) is interesting - you select from a series of policies and it shows what party you're most aligned to.

that's the main problem with FPTP, it kills involvement.

I'd go further than that, and say that the main problems with FPTP are that it's regressive, undemocratic and leads to the polarisation of political views rather than the building of consensus.

The ERS* say that >50% of UK seats are safe. This is not democracy.

My local city council has 94/96 councillors from the same party, from 60% of the vote. There is no effective opposition. This is not democracy either.

We should move to AV+ for the Commons, and STV for local and Lords.

* I concede they may have a vested interest.

As a card carrying lib dem I should be in favour of PR but surely it would have given UKIP/BNP more power?
I'm more than willing to be proved wrong as PR is fairer system.

It would have given UKIP/BNP more representation. The Conservatives might have relied on UKIP as part of a coalition but all the mainstream parties would shun the BNP.

As a card carrying lib dem I should be in favour of PR but surely it would have given UKIP/BNP more power?

It might have done, it might not have done. What we don't know is how many people would have voted for UKIP if they'd known there was a serious chance of them getting elected. Also, once a party is elected then their views are subject to the full glare of public scrutiny, and in any case they'd have to be part of a coalition to have any real power (and as Murray said above, everyone would shun the BNP even if they managed to avoid knifing each other in the back for more than 30 sec).

To turn this argument on its head, other small parties such as the Greens are unlikely to gain many seats under FPTP.

I think focussing on this one potential downside of PR misses the many other benefits, and it's not like the Scottish Assembly (which uses AV+) is full of racists...

The reason noone votes for the Lib Dems, although objectively they are the best party, is that people are awful and stupid and our voting system is crap. Also people are stupid. We are a terrible species and the world would be better without us. Not that there is any form of judgement on these things. nature doesn't actually care.

The reason noone votes for the Lib Dems, although objectively they are the best party, is that people are awful and stupid and our voting system is crap

There would be no government and opposition, there should be a coalition government (well actually an administration) made up of all those who were voted in.

Is there anywhere other than, I think, Switzerland that do this, though?

I don't see anything wrong with having a Government (whose role is to govern) and an Opposition (whose role is to hold the government to account). What [b]is[/b] wrong is the current situation where 40% of the vote leads to an absolute majority in parliament.

Interesting topic, my 2 cents:

1) Choice of leader - I liked Nick Clegg (remember 'I agree with Nick'?) and Charles Kennedy was one of the first politicians I remember agreeing with and respecting. I haven't felt the same empathy or respect for Farron or Willie Rennie, just can't take either of them seriously.

2) As said above, I think the two party thing has an impact, I was struggling with the choice between Labour and SNP in my seat (basically tactical vs. who I most aligned with) so a third choice just didn't really help.

3) Still don't understand why people judge them so harshly on the Tuiton Fees thing, is there a politician/party out there who could withstand that level of scrutiny and judgement?

4) They used to be dominant in Scotland (I think? I was pretty young) but I guess much of their core were potential Yes voters who switched to SNP?

They used to be dominant in Scotland (I think? I was pretty young) but I guess much of their core were potential Yes voters who switched to SNP?

Not sure how much of what happened in the last GE was due to all the Yes voters voting SNP, and the No vote being split? It will be interesting to see what happens this time (and next whenever that might be).

The problem with the Lib Dems is that they behave like a major political party, which (arguably) they no longer are. They need to behave more like a grass roots insurgency with young energetic and educated people fronting the campaign. Sadly, a snap election can't be fought like this.

It also needs those who're voting for them to do more. I'm a paid up member of the Lib Dems, campaigned for remain during the Referendum and have been going door to door over the past 3 weeks with my now 3 week old daughter. Those that care need to do more than simply tick a box if they want real political change in this country.

[URL= http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u161/Razors_kiss/7A0D811D-F7F0-4F7A-95A8-27E9D1F3C665_zpscmbnfsim.jp g" target="_blank">http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u161/Razors_kiss/7A0D811D-F7F0-4F7A-95A8-27E9D1F3C665_zpscmbnfsim.jp g"/> [/IMG][/URL]

Visible to all as they enter the village...even at night due to solar lights 🙂

They need to behave more like a grass roots insurgency with young energetic and educated people fronting the campaign. Sadly, a snap election can't be fought like this.

Hasn't the LD way always been built off starting with local activism, then local councillors, then eventually getting to a point where a run at the Westminster constituency becomes practical? As you say, this takes time.

The issue with the LibDems isn't about FPTP because at perhaps 8% of the vote they're irrelevant anyway.

Well, that's nonsense, I've already voted Labour (postal vote), to try and kick out our Comservative MP, yet would vote LibDem if it wasn't for FPTP. So I'm not in that 8% but would consider myself strongly supportive of the LibDems, in fact I'm a member.

The Lib Dems lost a lot of key talent at the last election and have not managed to rebuild.

True, they lost their best MPs, and held onto some of their worst. People judge parties by their MPs more than their other elected officials, and there were less than a handful of [s]impressive[/s] half decent LibDem MPs when the election was called.

It would have given UKIP/BNP more representation. The Conservatives might have relied on UKIP as part of a coalition but all the mainstream parties would shun the BNP.

And then we'd have ended up leaving the EU, moving back towards a discredited education system that favours the middle classes, and the government would have moved to the right… … oh, hold on…

The issue with the LibDems isn't about FPTP because at perhaps 8% of the vote they're irrelevant anyway.

I've thought about this a bit more overnight and have come to a possibly slightly tenuous conclusion.

1. Lib Dem support has been a predominantly middle class thing. I'd like to see the stats if they exist but I'd be willing to punt that a larger than average number of LD voters are middle class and degree educated.

2. Voting for the big two parties has predominantly been about ME ME ME. It's been about voting for the party that would protect YOUR workers rights, YOUR social support or YOUR right to buy YOUR council house or YOU paying less tex. Voting LD both in terms of the policies and the language used to sell them has been about US. A lot of LD voters are voting for a party promoting policies that would not directly benefit them but would make the community they live in more caring, prosperous or safe.

Conclusion - the Lib Dems will only become successful nationally when a larger sector of society is prepared or able to vote big picture and focus less on their personal needs.

yet would vote LIbDem if it wasn't for FPTP.

It's interesting you say that; I wonder how many people might vote LD (or indeed Green, or other smaller parties) if there was a chance of their vote translating into an elected representative.

This is the converse of what I said above about people thinking twice before voting UKIP if they were actually going to get elected, of course.

As aside, from the Tory manifesto:

We will retain the first past the post system of voting for parliamentary elections and extend this system to police and crime commissioner and mayoral elections

So their policy on this is actually regressive.

Conclusion - the Lib Dems will only become successful nationally when a larger sector of society is prepared or able to vote big picture and focus less on their personal needs

A strong (and depressing) conclusion.

I'd add in that smaller parties tend to have their more populist policies co-opted by (normally in a weaker form) the bigger parties, and less headline grabbing policies ignored. This applies to UKIP and the Greens as well of course.

UK voting or FPTP relies on concentrated support. The lib dems had missed out on power for so long, they probably forgot what it was like. There's always a difference between ideals and reality. Canada seems a bit like France, Switzerland or Germany. More active participants and higher equality. No party can be too radical. I think their soft stance on dope will pick up housing estate votes and they've reverted to honesty on tax n' spend. This thread is a case in point. we're all happy to sit here expressing great ideas, but who's out knocking on doors, sticking up posters and going to council meetings?

This thread is a case in point. we're all happy to sit here expressing great ideas, but who's out knocking on doors, sticking up posters and going to council meetings?

Daffy?

I wish they were bigger and think they are more relevant in the modern world that Labour. I also think they did fine in the coalition and were unfairly punished. However, Farron is just so limp compared to his predecessors and doesn't seem all that liberal in some of his views.

One reason they may not be so popular is that are only ~35 years old. The current pay aren't the same as the one Gladstone and Lloyd-George led. (Actually the initial liberal party rot set in with Lloyd-George at the helm and the resulting sudden rise of labour.)

Farron is just so limp compared to his predecessors

Maybe so, but it is said he's far more popular with the party grassroots than Clegg.

Not sure he's that illiberal though. [url= http://www.markpack.org.uk/150216/liberal-democrats-uk-general-election-ideology/ ]Mark Pack (who is, IIRC, a former LD strategist) has written a piece about how the perception of the LD position changes based on context[/url], rather than the position itself actually changing.

Gladstone and Home Rule for Ireland was the beginning of the end.

I think convert is on to something up there. It's me vs us, and the Lib Dems and Greens are the only real "us" options.

Mind you, just done the "vote for policies" questionnaire, is was 35% labour and 28% Ukip. WTAF? 😳

oldnpastit - Member
Yeah, they should have just cut primary school teachers instead, and gone to 45 pupils to a class.

I'll be voting Lib Dem.

@morecashthandash

An excellent site.. more people should try it out. For a no party stated, just policy survey it is very interesting.

https://voteforpolicies.org.uk

Myself:

50% Labour
20% Green
20% Liberal
10% UKIP
with not a bit of Tory in sight.

More interesting as the national results after 189000 surveys taken

25.6% Labour
21.6% Green
20.0% Liberal
16.4% UKIP
15.4% Tory
00.4% SNP
00.3% Plaid Cymru
00.3% Scottish Green

The breakdown of the top party in the 13 Policy Areas listed are:

Labour:

NHS, Economy, Housing, Retirement

Green:

Education, Europe/Brexit, Jobs/Work, Equality/Rights, Democracy, Foreign Policy/Defense

Liberal:

Environment, Crime

UKIP:

Tax/Benefits, Immigration

Tory:

None

Will the same show through on the 8th June?

I didn't look too closely at the breakdown, but I turned out 50% LD in that survey, with 25% Labour, and 25% of something I'm too ashamed to share.

I see they're making a thing of a rising star of the conservatives jumping ship; Azi Ahmed, a unrepentant liar. She fabricated a whole story about attending UKSF section, even profited from a book about it, total fiction. She won't help their case in the slightest.

I'm old school and actually vote for a local MP to represent me, and that's why I'd vote Lib Dem as the local Tory muppet is worse than useless (and not that I'd ever vote Labour, but Labour candidate doesn't stand a chance in Tory Surrey anyway). I'm not much of a Farron fan, certainly not Mrs May. Jezza is "a nice bloke" and has some nice views but again I'd never vote Labour, and more so in that Jezza also has a lot of views I strongly disagree with, and no matter how nice he is I can't vote for the things he stands for. So, my vote goes on who can represent me in parliament.

Sadly though, the country has changed in the last decade or so to an American style presidential election and it's all about voting for the PM not the local candidate, and there's really only ever two viable candidates in that. People don't look at the names on the ballot paper, just the party. I feel sorry for the people who will vote in an incompetent MP just to vote in their choice of PM.

As for the tuition fees, that was blown way out of proportion. Their manifesto promise would only apply if they were outright in charge in government. It was never going to happen under a coalition and not much they could have done about it. No lies going on, but they were slaughtered at the last election because of it.

As for the tuition fees, that was blown way out of proportion.Their manifesto promise would only apply if they were outright in charge in government.

[img] [/img]

On that voteforpolicies.org.uk my results were

Green Party 35.7%
Labour 35.7%
Liberal Democrats 21.4%
Conservatives 7.1%

For me the the trouble with the lib dems going into the coalition with the tories was that they sold out their support and core values when they had the politically closer option of a labour coalition. In fact at that time they were probably further left than Labour. The people who voted for them in that election did not vote for them to prop up a right wing Government, it doesn't matter if they were able to temper the worst of tory excesses, they still enabled them to do far more damage than if they hadn't supported them.

It wasn't the electorate that misunderstood the complexities of coalition, but the lib dems who misunderstood what their supporters believed in.

SaxonRider says......."Vote Whig!"

You'll be repealing the Corn Laws next.

Junkyard - lazarus 
Just not true

A pledge based on him just being an MP in parliament, not part of coalition government. Compromise had to be made, or rather as the minor party in the coalition they had to do what they were told.

Besides, breaking a pledge like that didn't justify the hammering they got by people voting far more for the far bigger liars.

It wasn't the electorate that misunderstood the complexities of coalition, but the lib dems who misunderstood what their supporters believed in.

They also didn't heed the warning from their previous leader in 2010...

a subsequent assimilation within the Conservative fold

David Cameron has been here often before: from the early days of his leadership he was happy to describe himself as a 'liberal Conservative'. And we know he dislikes the term Tory. These ongoing efforts at appropriation are going to have to be watched

Tried out voteforpolicies.
That's now 4 of that type of quiz i've done, and 4 different parties (con/lib/lab/ukip) i've been told I should vote for. 😕
Maybe I should try and find a couple more and see if I can collect greens and snp 😆

What else did they do that was indefensible?

Along with Milliband and almost his entire party, they failed to reign in Iain Duncan Smith, Esther McVey & David Freud in their reign of murder and mental torture. Hyperbole? Too far?
WCA, nudge unit policy, using Martin Seligman torture tactics on citizens trying to claim rightful benefits, Slave Labour, modern day workhouses for benefits /food, exponential rise of food banks, retroactively changing laws, criminalising homelesnes, criminalising squatting...
Christ, there's so much that evil Bald bastard is responsible for I've forgotten the half of it

This thread is a case in point. we're all happy to sit here expressing great ideas, but who's out knocking on doors, sticking up posters and going to council meetings?

*raises hand*

I'm the stand-in Election Agent for a Parliamentary candidate, and stood in the 2015 local council elections. Sadly, as the opinion polls have changed, [url= http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Darlington ]the constituency had become very marginal[/url] and so we're avoiding too much active campaigning to avoid the [url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/may/31/controversial-blogposts-tory-party-candidate-absolutely-shocking ]totally horrific rape-apologist Tory candidate[/url] getting elected.

I spent yesterday morning posting leaflets with the candidate in the [url= http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Sedgefield ]neighbouring safe Labour seat[/url], and yesterday afternoon with the candidate talking to residents in an [url= http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.py?seat=Durham+North+West ]even more safe Labour seat[/url].

Prior to 2015 I voted Lib Dem in Parliamentary elections, because I saw them as the antidote to Labour's more authoritarian streak (ID cards, Iraq War, etc.) and because the local options were Lab, Con, Lib, BNP/Ukip in a relatively safe Labour seat. I saw my vote as a direction indicator to the elected MP.

The 2010 coalition, and getting a bit older/involved, made me look close at the Lib Dems. Although socially liberal, they're economically not dissimilar to the Tories. This is part of the reason that they fitted so well with the Tories in coalition.

In 2015 I was really pleased to have the option of voting Green, and happy to have that choice again this week.

For me the the trouble with the lib dems going into the coalition with the tories was that they sold out their support and core values [i]when they had the politically closer option of a labour coalition[/i]

No, they didn't. A Lab/LD coalition wouldn't have formed a majority government, as they'd have had 315 seats, 316 if the sole Green MP had come on board.

Having said this, I don't think the coalition was all that popular with the LD membership, which is probably why Farron (from the left-leaning side of the party) got elected leader rather than Normal Lamb (from the Orange Book/Clegg side).

A pledge based on him just being an MP in parliament, not part of coalition government. Compromise had to be made, or rather as the minor party in the coalition they had to do what they were told.

Besides, breaking a pledge like that didn't justify the hammering they got by people voting far more for the far bigger liars.

This.

I don't think the coalition was all that popular with the LD membership

The 2010 candidate locally resigned his membership of the party after they tripled tuition fees. My uni-fried, who was a serving Lib Dem councillor in That London, did the same.

Whatever the rights/wrongs of the coalition, it was a huge tactical error and one that won't be soon forgotten.

They should have agreed to support a Tory minority government on a case-by-case basis, rather than entered a formal coalition.

Whatever the rights/wrongs of the coalition, it was a huge tactical error and one that won't be soon forgotten.

They should have agreed to support a Tory minority government on a case-by-case basis, rather than entered a formal coalition.

I think that's recognised, hence the statement this time round that they will not go into coalition.

They should have agreed to support a Tory minority government on a case-by-case basis, rather than entered a formal coalition.

Having spent years arguing that coalition governments - as seen on the continent - can be successful, could they have maintained any credibility if they rejected it?

I do wonder to what extent George Osborne consciously stitched them up. He did the same thing later to IDS. But perhaps it was just accidental good fortune.

Mostly FPTP, but also they burned their bridges with a lot of us by going into coalition with the Tories.