Why doesn't England go Lib Dem?

[DarkLordofDevon]

There is 1 good reason we don't go Lib Dem.

NO ONE EVER VOTES FOR THEM.

They haven't been in power for years, so the masses think they CAN'T win. Its a self fullfill paradox. The masses think they can't win, don't vote for them, so they don't win.

Conservative and Labour hold all the power.

 

[nova18]

In England I have realised that whenever we replace our government with a new party, they do an equally piss poor job of running the place.
Eventually we're going to end up with just a chimp with a hat.

 

[jomala]

Nick Clegg isn't bad, but if Barack Obama quit his day job and took over the Lib Dems they could have real chance next election. As it is, I'm expecting fairly even voting across the three main parties plus a growth in the extremists. However, though I can't predict the end result, it's still unlikely to result in a hung parliament (where no party can rule alone) as our system rarely produces one! It'd be interesting to see what happened in that case though.

 

[GloatingSwine]

Conservative and Labour hold all the power.

And look where that's gotten us.

I've voted Lib Dem at the last two elections, despite the fact that my local MP (Alan Simpson) is one of the few Labour MPs who isn't a ****.

 

[EzraPound]

Here's the crack boys and girls...
Britain was Lib Dem until after WWI. They founded the NHS, the national education system, gave people a national pension, sick pay, dole, and gave women the vote. They did a hell of alot of good. BUT!!! They raised taxes a bit to fund everything... Oh! The Horror! So all the rich folks who had the vote, voted conservative and they were pretty much in power from, lets say 1927 to 1997, 70 years there abouts. Then Labour came into power because Margaret Thatcher f***ed everything up and crippled us, but it still took us another term under John Majour for us to do anything about it. Labour, as in real Labour, have never been in power. Tony Blairs New Labour came into power in 1997, I think, and admitted that they had no memorandum and would be continuing the conservative rule!!!
AND WE VOTED THESE IDIOTS IN!!!
Which is why we have no one to blame but ourselves for the way things are today. IE the privatisation of the NHS, schools, the complete lack of national services and industry, etc etc etc...
Lib Dem have never been a viable option since, because they completely lost heart, they say they have plan, but if they actually got into power I think they'd just continue with what's going on because they haven't a clue how to rule. They don't really have a manifesto anymore. They wait until Labour and the Conservatives preach theirs then say something in the middle, but I doubt they could impliment it.
The only way to have a government that would work in my eyes, and I hate to say it, but would be to set up some crazy as sin Reformist party on the internet, using social networking sites and youtube to spread their propaganda to the voters of today and tomorrow. It would work better than no one knowing anything, or even careing to find out about what these parties are offering and just voting for whoever we think may help when we're told to.
Set up a Reformist party for the UK, please, someone, anyone, I'm too lazy.
Use the medium of the internet to get us youths interested and involved enough to care.
They'd get into power so easy if they whored themselves to the entire English population of myspace, facebook, and youtube easily, and aslong as they're not dicks and do something good for the country all will be better.
Okies... crazy rant over... no one be mean now... it's the 4 morning coffees talking.

edit:
To have a party that truely works you need something truely middle of the road. To take onboard all ideas and use the one that pleases the most and does the most good. Also I don't think democracy really works because no one cares enough to make it work. You can't get everyone involved and you can't please everyone. I do honestly believe something like a council of 7 set up works the best. [try and find the theory online, or for a simpler one, like the magi system from neon genesis: evangelion]
Anyway, must dash... will be back to rant more laters... toodles.

Interesting. Also, did you know my ancestors were Hessians?

We pay more in taxes than most other countries already. Thats before we vote in someone who wanted to raise taxation even higher.

These:

Nick Clegg has told The Sunday Telegraph that he is reviewing his pledge to cut 4p from income tax with a view to offering a much bigger cut for "middle earners".

Nick Clegg, the party leader, announced that he will fight the next election on a promise to raise the starting threshold for income tax to £10,000. From next year, income tax will be levied on all earnings above £6,475.

I'd be happy not paying tax and receiving better services, since I make under $20k.

Thats interesting. Whats the date on these quotes? Ill admit Ive stopped listening to what the Lib dems have to say of late. When the economy was good they were all for raising taxes. I take it none of their MPs drive a car, apart from when its on their exoenses.

My pledge ia to dig up England, making it a free floating island, then row it to the caribbean for the sunny weather. I can pledge whatever I want because Ill never get in power. A similar situation to the lib dems.

They're from recent news article - as in, the last week. Also, LD can promise whatever they like if they don't expect to get elected, but it still has to be realistic if they want to be taken seriously, or - in the off-chance they won - be able to fulfill their mandate. Plus, what you said could theoretically provide reason to never vote for an inexperienced party, which seems wrong.

 

[freakyHippo]

I would imagine it because they haven't had anything that even vaguely resembles a leader with any charm and charisma for like, well, for ever. I understand and appreciate that politics is not all about personality and who has the prettiest face but i always feel that the british media, who align themselves with either one of the two major parties, have no time for the Liberal Democrats as there is no benefit in it for them. I know that people should be able to make their own minds up through policy and a little bit of intuition but alas that is not the case; the British public have their opinions told to them via red topped tabloid newspapers.

Other possibilities include when the LibDems encouraged voters to vote for Labour over them so as to ensure that the Conservatives where voted out at the next election. I forget which year this was, maybe someone can help me out? I sometimes feel that this decision was more detrimental to the long term health of the party as people, myself included, see them as almost a protest vote against the terrible polcy and bad decision making of the other two parties.

Maybe in the future they will get in to power but until they get a leader that can sway a media fixated with the two big boys and they can then in turn make them seem like a viable vote to the masses, this will not be possible. Hell, even then it may not be possible with the overwhelming voter apathy that the nation has.

Sorry, that appears to have become a bit of a rant.....sorry....have a nice day : )

1997 was the year you were thinking of. Back then there was a general backlash against the Tory government after they had been in power for the last 18 years (a backlash that would have come in 1992 had Niel Kinnock not fallen over in the sea apparently :S). The general feeling was that anyone was better than the conservatives, a similar feeling to the one prevelant now that anyone will be better than Labour. The Liberal Democrats took the view that where there was likely to be a split between left wing voters voting for either labour or lib dem, it was better to concentrate on left wing votes into one party to ensure the tories were voted out. I think there may have been some sort of agreement between Labour and the Lib Dems for this to happen and Labour would give the Lib Dems some sort of say in policy if Labour got into power. I remember there being something of an uproar that Blair had stabbed the Lib Dems in the back in 1998 but i was only 14 at the time.

Another big mistake the Lib Dems made was kicking Charles Kennedy out of the party for being an alcoholic. Charles Kennedy was an very popular leader of the lib dems where as Menzies (or however you spelt his bloody name) Campbell wasn't. The Lib Dems lost a lot of momentum that Charles Kennedy had built up during his premiership of the party (i think he increased the number of seats in the house of commens for the party from a number in the teens to about 52). If they had managed to continue that momentum in the latter part of this decade then they may have been a viable voting alternative to the two 'major' parties currently. Currently Nick Clegg has to redo all the good work that Charles Kennedy did in making his party more visible and get it into the minds of voters that they are an alternative.

 

[Spawn_Of_Kyuss]

OP, this is completely the wrong forum to ask why liberals don't rule the world. For whatever reason, there seems to be a heavy majority on the right here. The kind of right that sit around all day complaining about taxes and intellectually jerking one another off.

This place gives me hope actually, because it proves that its not only liberals who sit around congratulating each other on being awesome all day.

As to the actual answer to your question:

There is 1 good reason we don't go Lib Dem.

NO ONE EVER VOTES FOR THEM.

They haven't been in power for years, so the masses think they CAN'T win. Its a self fullfill paradox. The masses think they can't win, don't vote for them, so they don't win.

Conservative and Labour hold all the power.

This.

I'll still be voting for them come next general election though.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

Conservative and Labour hold all the power.

And look where that's gotten us.

I've voted Lib Dem at the last two elections, despite the fact that my local MP (Alan Simpson) is one of the few Labour MPs who isn't a ****.

True. I'm not saying having Labour and Conservative with all the power is a good thing, its just the way things are.

 

[EzraPound]

OP, this is completely the wrong forum to ask why liberals don't rule the world. For whatever reason, there seems to be a heavy majority on the right here. The kind of right that sit around all day complaining about taxes and intellectually jerking one another off.

This place gives me hope actually, because it proves that its not only liberals who sit around congratulating each other on being awesome all day.

As to the actual answer to your question:

There is 1 good reason we don't go Lib Dem.

NO ONE EVER VOTES FOR THEM.

They haven't been in power for years, so the masses think they CAN'T win. Its a self fullfill paradox. The masses think they can't win, don't vote for them, so they don't win.

Conservative and Labour hold all the power.

This.

I'll still be voting for them come next general election though.

Well, I consider myself socially left and economically centre-right, which could be understood as "liberal" in European terms (I support public medicare and daycare, but also education vouchers like in Sweden and low business taxation/regulation). And I do think David Cameron's a good leader, I'm just not sure whether all of his caucus would have the best things in mind for the UK.

 

[beddo]

We pay more in taxes than most other countries already. Thats before we vote in someone who wanted to raise taxation even higher.

Where did you get that one from? Under Labour we've had more tax rises than we could have ever imagined. They claimed they would put income tax up, instead they put up National Insurance, a tax on income. Massive council tax rises above inflation, increases in all types of tax including but not limited to; road tax, fuel duty, tobacco, alcohol. Immense costs for university education. We now find out that they waste enormous amounts on their own expenses.

The Lib Dems want to reduce tax on low earners and the middle class by adding moderate tax increases on the rich. Moreover they want to replace Council Tax with a local income Tax as Council Tax is inherently unfair on the poor such as pensioners.

Note that they wanted to do this by making top earners pay 50%, something that Labour now wants to do after their massive cock up on the economy.

The Lib Dems also want to cut the size of central government and make it more locally oriented. They will get rid to wasteful bodies like the CBI that do almost nothing. They will reduce the ridiculous expenses that MPs waste and make them all more accountable.

They also, believe in free universal education, if you've done economics you will know that education is essential in economic development. A stupid economy is a slow economy.

Rather importantly the Lib Dems have the only MP who actually has some understanding of the economy and what to do in this dire situation, Dr. Vince Cable. Notice how most of the Lib Dems are well respected and educated, their previous leader was actually knighted.

The reason they don't win is because the British are typically right wings, we just switch between the Conservatives and Labour who undo each other's work every 15 years or so, when we realise they've cocked it all up again we put the others in to do the same.

 

[beddo]

I'm Canadian - and thusly, don't know English politics really well - but why doesn't England go Lib Dem, since NuLabour are such disasters and alot of the Conservatives there are Thatcherites? Aside from which, the party is just cool (note "economically liberal" in this context means neoliberal, albeit in the Lib-Dems case while supporting social security):

Using a two-dimensional scale, Political Compass defined the Lib Dems as social libertarians and economically liberal, and New Labour and the Conservatives as economically liberal and socially authoritarian.[7]

Moderate economically and socially libertarian. Sounds like a good deal.

They never get in because the the UK is predominantly made up of the stupid. People who read The Sun and the Daily Mail. Even though these people would benefit most under the Lib Dems.

It's a bit like the bible belt of the US, while they would have a better standard of living under the Democrats they resist them because they think they associate better with the right wing.

 

[EzraPound]

We pay more in taxes than most other countries already. Thats before we vote in someone who wanted to raise taxation even higher.

Where did you get that one from? Under Labour we've had more tax rises than we could have ever imagined. They claimed they would put income tax up, instead they put up National Insurance, a tax on income. Massive council tax rises above inflation, increases in all types of tax including but not limited to; road tax, fuel duty, tobacco, alcohol. Immense costs for university education. We now find out that they waste enormous amounts on their own expenses.

The Lib Dems want to reduce tax on low earners and the middle class by adding moderate tax increases on the rich. Moreover they want to replace Council Tax with a local income Tax as Council Tax is inherently unfair on the poor such as pensioners.

Note that they wanted to do this by making top earners pay 50%, something that Labour now wants to do after their massive cock up on the economy.

The Lib Dems also want to cut the size of central government and make it more locally oriented. They will get rid to wasteful bodies like the CBI that do almost nothing. They will reduce the ridiculous expenses that MPs waste and make them all more accountable.

They also, believe in free universal education, if you've done economics you will know that education is essential in economic development. A stupid economy is a slow economy.

Rather importantly the Lib Dems have the only MP who actually has some understanding of the economy and what to do in this dire situation, Dr. Vince Cable. Notice how most of the Lib Dems are well respected and educated, their previous leader was actually knighted.

The reason they don't win is because the British are typically right wings, we just switch between the Conservatives and Labour who undo each other's work every 15 years or so, when we realise they've cocked it all up again we put the others in to do the same.

I would agree to all of this except - perhaps - free tuition: atleast in Canada, a problem exists with too many people taking the university route, meaning a moderate economic deterrent could be beneficial. That said, decreasing the costs of tuitions and encouraging a mix of increased public and private support for universities could help.

In Canada, one of our leading political figures published a document called the "Rae Report", which describes the way to improve post-secondary education without massive government investment ($15b or so more in gov't funding was needed, but alot of his suggestions have to do with allowing regulated, private loans, and so on). It's an interesting read, if you have the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rae_Report

Of course, a national daycare program, on the other hand, I'm very in favour of, especially since it would help close the gender gap.

 

[beddo]

I don't know much about English politics but philosophies that thrive in North America probably won't thrive exactly as they are in England, because it is a different culture with a different population and set of resources.

This ^
But as someone has already said above, our taxes are high enough thanks.

ARGH!!! You're such a victim of propaganda, YOUR taxes will be lower unless you earn more than 100k a year!

Something that your beloved Labour or Conservatives are now following the Lib Dems on.

Everyone who thinks the Conservatives can fix this is an idiot. Anyone who is right wing is an idiot.

 

[beddo]

We pay more in taxes than most other countries already. Thats before we vote in someone who wanted to raise taxation even higher.

Where did you get that one from? Under Labour we've had more tax rises than we could have ever imagined. They claimed they would put income tax up, instead they put up National Insurance, a tax on income. Massive council tax rises above inflation, increases in all types of tax including but not limited to; road tax, fuel duty, tobacco, alcohol. Immense costs for university education. We now find out that they waste enormous amounts on their own expenses.

The Lib Dems want to reduce tax on low earners and the middle class by adding moderate tax increases on the rich. Moreover they want to replace Council Tax with a local income Tax as Council Tax is inherently unfair on the poor such as pensioners.

Note that they wanted to do this by making top earners pay 50%, something that Labour now wants to do after their massive cock up on the economy.

The Lib Dems also want to cut the size of central government and make it more locally oriented. They will get rid to wasteful bodies like the CBI that do almost nothing. They will reduce the ridiculous expenses that MPs waste and make them all more accountable.

They also, believe in free universal education, if you've done economics you will know that education is essential in economic development. A stupid economy is a slow economy.

Rather importantly the Lib Dems have the only MP who actually has some understanding of the economy and what to do in this dire situation, Dr. Vince Cable. Notice how most of the Lib Dems are well respected and educated, their previous leader was actually knighted.

The reason they don't win is because the British are typically right wings, we just switch between the Conservatives and Labour who undo each other's work every 15 years or so, when we realise they've cocked it all up again we put the others in to do the same.

I would agree to all of this except - perhaps - free tuition: atleast in Canada, a problem exists with too many people taking the university route, meaning a moderate economic deterrent could be beneficial. That said, decreasing the costs of tuitions and encouraging a mix of increased public and private support for universities could help.

In Canada, one of our leading political figures published a document called the "Rae Report", which describes the way to improve post-secondary education without massive government investment ($15b or so more in gov't funding was needed, but alot of his suggestions have to do with allowing regulated, private loans, and so on). It's an interesting read, if you have the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rae_Report

Education is most important for children until they are about five years old. We have literally no education or support for children. Although our Nanny state NuLabour now require baby sitters to WRITE DOWN when the child first crawls, walks, talks etc.

To many people are going to university which is a problem. Quite simply, many course should be cut down and university places should be limited to a certain percentage of the population, with special measures for mature students.

There are more people studying photography in the UK than there is demand for photographers in all of Europe. It's a joke, false hope is being given and people are being taught useless skills.

What we need is decent education for the smartest people, not the richest or the laziest.

 

[02cfranklin]

ARGH!!! You're such a victim of propaganda, YOUR taxes will be lower unless you earn more than 100k a year!

Something that your beloved Labour or Conservatives are now following the Lib Dems on.

Everyone who thinks the Conservatives can fix this is an idiot. Anyone who is right wing is an idiot.

I would say.. less victim, more 17 and not giving a $h1t. I can't vote so I can't change anything. I generally try and stay away from political discussions.

 

[Doug]

Nick Clegg isn't bad, but if Barack Obama quit his day job and took over the Lib Dems they could have real chance next election. As it is, I'm expecting fairly even voting across the three main parties plus a growth in the extremists. However, though I can't predict the end result, it's still unlikely to result in a hung parliament (where no party can rule alone) as our system rarely produces one! It'd be interesting to see what happened in that case though.

Good predictions - although I'll go one step further and predict that Labour will lose to the conservative with a narrow majority towards the conservatives and near even shares between the Lib-dems and labour

 

[beddo]

And our taxes are going up even more now due to the budget

Under the Lib Dems the budget would be smaller than Labour's. It's ridiculous, they claim to be trying to stop a recession. This is NOT a recession, it's a CORRECTION.

They want to try and stop negative growth, they result of unmanageable levels of debt by getting us to borrow and spend! Moreover, if we're not willing to do this, which we are clearly resisting they've decided to go ahead and borrow on our behalf.

Most worryingly they're trying to stop falls in the housing market. With banks offering mortgages of 4.99% above the base rate being commented on as good deals, when we see returns to interest rates of about 5% we'll get a whole new crash as people will be too stretched to pay their mortgages.

 

[The Giggling Pin]

1997 was the year you were thinking of. Back then there was a general backlash against the Tory government after they had been in power for the last 18 years (a backlash that would have come in 1992 had Niel Kinnock not fallen over in the sea apparently :S). The general feeling was that anyone was better than the conservatives, a similar feeling to the one prevelant now that anyone will be better than Labour. The Liberal Democrats took the view that where there was likely to be a split between left wing voters voting for either labour or lib dem, it was better to concentrate on left wing votes into one party to ensure the tories were voted out. I think there may have been some sort of agreement between Labour and the Lib Dems for this to happen and Labour would give the Lib Dems some sort of say in policy if Labour got into power. I remember there being something of an uproar that Blair had stabbed the Lib Dems in the back in 1998 but i was only 14 at the time.

Another big mistake the Lib Dems made was kicking Charles Kennedy out of the party for being an alcoholic. Charles Kennedy was an very popular leader of the lib dems where as Menzies (or however you spelt his bloody name) Campbell wasn't. The Lib Dems lost a lot of momentum that Charles Kennedy had built up during his premiership of the party (i think he increased the number of seats in the house of commens for the party from a number in the teens to about 52). If they had managed to continue that momentum in the latter part of this decade then they may have been a viable voting alternative to the two 'major' parties currently. Currently Nick Clegg has to redo all the good work that Charles Kennedy did in making his party more visible and get it into the minds of voters that they are an alternative.

Yup, that sounds about the right year.

As for the whole Charles Kennedy thing, what a shame! Although if they hadn't kicked him out the newspapers would have been all over him like a cheap suit and he would have been forced to resign anyway. You are right though, if that hadn't happened they MAY have been a viable alternative.

 

[freakyHippo]

Here's the crack boys and girls...
Britain was Lib Dem until after WWI. They founded the NHS, the national education system, gave people a national pension, sick pay, dole, and gave women the vote. They did a hell of alot of good. BUT!!! They raised taxes a bit to fund everything... Oh! The Horror! So all the rich folks who had the vote, voted conservative and they were pretty much in power from, lets say 1927 to 1997, 70 years there abouts. Then Labour came into power because Margaret Thatcher f***ed everything up and crippled us, but it still took us another term under John Majour for us to do anything about it. Labour, as in real Labour, have never been in power. Tony Blairs New Labour came into power in 1997, I think, and admitted that they had no memorandum and would be continuing the conservative rule!!!

Mate get your facts right

NHS - founded in 1948 under a Labour government
Pensions - founded in 1910 under a Conservative government
Unemployment Benifit - founded in 1911 under a Conservative government
Womens Sufferage - given in 1928 under a conservative governement

The only one you got there was the introduction of the national education system by a Liberal government in 1870.

Also you say the conservatives were in power from 1927 to 1997. I'm sure the Labour governments of Ramsey MacDonald (1929-31), Clement Attlee (1945-51), Harold Wilson (1964-1970) and James Callaghan (1974-79) would disagree with you. Also the Coalition governments between and during the wars mean that a conservative government has been in power for 34 years since 1927, not quiet the 70 years you claimed.

Sorry but i couldn't let something so incorrect lie.

 

[EzraPound]

We pay more in taxes than most other countries already. Thats before we vote in someone who wanted to raise taxation even higher.

Where did you get that one from? Under Labour we've had more tax rises than we could have ever imagined. They claimed they would put income tax up, instead they put up National Insurance, a tax on income. Massive council tax rises above inflation, increases in all types of tax including but not limited to; road tax, fuel duty, tobacco, alcohol. Immense costs for university education. We now find out that they waste enormous amounts on their own expenses.

The Lib Dems want to reduce tax on low earners and the middle class by adding moderate tax increases on the rich. Moreover they want to replace Council Tax with a local income Tax as Council Tax is inherently unfair on the poor such as pensioners.

Note that they wanted to do this by making top earners pay 50%, something that Labour now wants to do after their massive cock up on the economy.

The Lib Dems also want to cut the size of central government and make it more locally oriented. They will get rid to wasteful bodies like the CBI that do almost nothing. They will reduce the ridiculous expenses that MPs waste and make them all more accountable.

They also, believe in free universal education, if you've done economics you will know that education is essential in economic development. A stupid economy is a slow economy.

Rather importantly the Lib Dems have the only MP who actually has some understanding of the economy and what to do in this dire situation, Dr. Vince Cable. Notice how most of the Lib Dems are well respected and educated, their previous leader was actually knighted.

The reason they don't win is because the British are typically right wings, we just switch between the Conservatives and Labour who undo each other's work every 15 years or so, when we realise they've cocked it all up again we put the others in to do the same.

I would agree to all of this except - perhaps - free tuition: atleast in Canada, a problem exists with too many people taking the university route, meaning a moderate economic deterrent could be beneficial. That said, decreasing the costs of tuitions and encouraging a mix of increased public and private support for universities could help.

In Canada, one of our leading political figures published a document called the "Rae Report", which describes the way to improve post-secondary education without massive government investment ($15b or so more in gov't funding was needed, but alot of his suggestions have to do with allowing regulated, private loans, and so on). It's an interesting read, if you have the time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rae_Report

Education is most important for children until they are about five years old. We have literally no education or support for children. Although our Nanny state NuLabour now require baby sitters to WRITE DOWN when the child first crawls, walks, talks etc.

To many people are going to university which is a problem. Quite simply, many course should be cut down and university places should be limited to a certain percentage of the population, with special measures for mature students.

There are more people studying photography in the UK than there is demand for photographers in all of Europe. It's a joke, false hope is being given and people are being taught useless skills.

What we need is decent education for the smartest people, not the richest or the laziest.

Oh my god. That NuLabour baby sitter thing is innane.

With regards to post-secondary education, one radical thing that might work is putting a soft cap on how much can be charged for tuitions, and how much proportionally can be taken in from private sponsorships. In this way, universities would have to cut costs drastically (in the absence of the government picking up the bill), making tuitions less of an obstacle and thusly making grades a more significant criteria. Of course, the quality of education might go down somewhat, but it could potentially be offset by more talented classes.