Where did it all go wrong for The Liberal Democrats ?

[Busaholic]

It cannot have helped that he was a Treasury insider at a time when his boss, Selwyn Lloyd, had introduce an extremely unpopular pay policy that hit the usual targets - nurses, teachers, etc, and increased taxes on sweets, ice cream and the like (the 'Pocket Money Tax', that was not lost on me). Selwyn Lloyd was sacked in the 'Night of the Long Knives' as MacMillan desperately tried to cling to power and popularity. I hadn't heard about the anti-semitism before, but I can believe it, they were not tolerant times.

I hadn't heard about the anti-semitism either, but I do know that a fellow named Waldron Smithers was elected Conservative MP for Orpington in 1945 and was behind a petition called the Fighting Fund for Freedom that was adopted by certain locally prominent Tories in areas not so far from Orpington to promote disguised (or not so) antisemitism. The League of Empire Loyalists was founded in 1954(?) and attracted many of the Conservative disposition, including an MP or two as well as refugees from Oswald Mosley's disbanded Fascists. At the period in question there was far more antisemitism among Tories than among Labourites at MP or local party level. Labour had many prominent Jewish MPs (Manny Shinwell, the Silkin brothers, later on Gerald Kaufman) while the Tories had few, Keith Joseph being the obvious exception and he was always an outsider. History (which incorporated politics) was my favourite subject at school and the history master made no secret of his admiration for Disraeli, in his opinion the best Prime Minister Britain had ever had, and he was of course a Jew. Half my class came from the Petts Wood/Orpington area too, but I came from a grittier place!

 

[Butts]

Is Sir Ed Davey the man to lead the Liberal Democrats out of the wilderness ? - or as an "orange book" LD just a "Tory in Disguise"

 

[Acfb]

Is Sir Ed Davey the man to lead the Liberal Democrats out of the wilderness ? - or as an "orange book" LD just a "Tory in Disguise"

I think the LDs are in quite a good position in the south of England even though they are finished as a national party in general elections (winning random council seats in by elections and on unpopular labour councils don't really count). They should pick up a few seats like South Cambridgeshire , Guildford and Wimbledon etc as a minimum at the next election and have good long term potential as the Chesham and Amersham by election shows. Although I'm not convinced Tory support will crumble in the short term in the south in time for the next election.

 

[daodao]

They should pick up a few seats like South Cambridgeshire , Guildford and Wimbledon etc as a minimum at the next election

They MIGHT pick up one or two seats in the south of England at the next general election, but typically many Lie Dem seats won at by-elections revert back to the Tories at the next general election, and the expected boundary changes could be distinctly unhelpful to them. They won the recent by-election at Chesham and Amersham by throwing the book at it in terms of campaigning resources, which they would be unable to do at a general election. They should be very wary of what they promise in their manifesto.

 

[Acfb]

They MIGHT pick up one or two seats in the south of England at the next general election, but typically many Lie Dem seats won at by-elections revert back to the Tories at the next general election, and the expected boundary changes could be distinctly unhelpful to them. They won the recent by-election at Chesham and Amersham by throwing the book at it in terms of campaigning resources, which they would be unable to do at a general election. They should be very wary of what they promise in their manifesto.

Yes, that's basically what I'm saying. I wouldn't bet on the LDs retaining Chesham and Amersham or bet on the Lib Dems doing much better next time overall but they are probably now much better positioned in the long term in specific constituencies in the south. Too much volatility to make hard and fast predictions though of course. The Lib Dems recovering to 30+ seats is actually the only likely way I can see Starmer becoming PM at the next election.

 

[scotrail158713]

I'm resurrecting an old thread here, but their opposition to "vaccine passports" up here might get them somewhere. As far as I can see, they're the only party to be outright against them. Labour and the Conservatives seem a bit more wishy-washy on the subject, focusing more on other areas such as track and trace.

 

[3141]

Vaccine passports may seem an important issue at present, but it may no longer be an issue at all in two or three years' time when an election is held, and neither will track and trace. The Lib Dems will need some solid policies which look forward to the future and not back to what is happening now.

 

[Butts]

I'm resurrecting an old thread here, but their opposition to "vaccine passports" up here might get them somewhere. As far as I can see, they're the only party to be outright against them. Labour and the Conservatives seem a bit more wishy-washy on the subject, focusing more on other areas such as track and trace.

Try and get them to oppose the ridiculous testing regimen for returning UK travellers who are subjected to 2 tests on return from abroad when virtually no one else in Europe is .

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm resurrecting an old thread here, but their opposition to "vaccine passports" up here might get them somewhere. As far as I can see, they're the only party to be outright against them. Labour and the Conservatives seem a bit more wishy-washy on the subject, focusing more on other areas such as track and trace.

Seems a bit opportunistic to me. And interestingly, looking at the discussion LibDemVoice, which is the main public discussion forum for LibDem members and supporters, they are basically getting almost universally condemned for this policy - so I don't think opposition to vaccine passports is playing at all well to their own supporters. (The link is to an article about their opposition to vaccine passports, but the comments after it are overwhelmingly negative)

 

[LOL The Irony]

Seems a bit opportunistic to me. And interestingly, looking at the discussion LibDemVoice, which is the main public discussion forum for LibDem members and supporters, they are basically getting almost universally condemned for this policy - so I don't think opposition to vaccine passports is playing at all well to their own supporters. (The link is to an article about their opposition to vaccine passports, but the comments after it are overwhelmingly negative)

Well then, we may see a shift in voters from their current crop to new, pro freedom voters.

 

[edwin_m]

Despite what some on this forum seem to think and say, I suspect most public opinion would see vaccine passports (with appropriate exemption where medical reasons apply) as a reasonable approach to controlling Covid without limiting everyone's freedom unduly, and opposing them as little more than a sop to anti-vaxxers. So while I tend to agree with LibDems on most things, this isn't one of them.

 

[big_rig]

I have never understood the point of the Liberal Democrats beyond being an outlet for people who either:

Live in a Labour area or associate with Labour voters but don’t want to admit to supporting the conservatives (or the other way round); or
Want to be able to criticise and consider themselves better than supporters of both Labour and the Conservatives.

There has been a few instances where they have actually taken a position beyond “we’re better than everyone else” like ID cards and Iraq but those never went anywhere and they quickly reverted to trying to be everything to everyone with predictable results.

 

[edwin_m]

I have never understood the point of the Liberal Democrats beyond being an outlet for people who either:

Live in a Labour area or associate with Labour voters but don’t want to admit to supporting the conservatives (or the other way round); or
Want to be able to criticise and consider themselves better than supporters of both Labour and the Conservatives.

There has been a few instances where they have actually taken a position beyond “we’re better than everyone else” like ID cards and Iraq but those never went anywhere and they quickly reverted to trying to be everything to everyone with predictable results.

I would have found it very difficult to support either Labour or the Conservative policies in 2019, but would happily have supported the LibDems particularly for their opposition to Brexit. In the end I decided the LibDems had blown it, Labour was less repellent than the Tories and Corbyn was unlikely to become PM, so voted tactically.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I have never understood the point of the Liberal Democrats beyond being an outlet for people who either:

Live in a Labour area or associate with Labour voters but don’t want to admit to supporting the conservatives (or the other way round); or
Want to be able to criticise and consider themselves better than supporters of both Labour and the Conservatives.

There has been a few instances where they have actually taken a position beyond “we’re better than everyone else” like ID cards and Iraq but those never went anywhere and they quickly reverted to trying to be everything to everyone with predictable results.

I think the point of the LibDems ought to be to advance a liberal vision of society, which is basically about championing individual liberty while also ensuring that everyone does have the means to fulfill their potential. The preamble to the LibDem constitution says it quite well I think:

The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives.

To my mind, the problem is that the LibDems seem to have to some extent forgotten their roots and have allowed themselves to get enmeshed in left-wing politics and taking opportunistic stances on issues, without really thinking about how their policies relate to liberalism.

 

[edwin_m]

To my mind, the problem is that the LibDems seem to have to some extent forgotten their roots and have allowed themselves to get enmeshed in left-wing politics and taking opportunistic stances on issues, without really thinking about how their policies relate to liberalism.

Like supporting the Cameron government?

 

[big_rig]

I think the point of the LibDems ought to be to advance a liberal vision of society, which is basically about championing individual liberty while also ensuring that everyone does have the means to fulfill their potential. The preamble to the LibDem constitution says it quite well I think:



To my mind, the problem is that the LibDems seem to have to some extent forgotten their roots and have allowed themselves to get enmeshed in left-wing politics and taking opportunistic stances on issues, without really thinking about how their policies relate to liberalism.

This is pretty much what every political party on earth stands for though. Not many of them get up and say actually we’d like to make life worse for people, and to not give people a fair go. It is vague enough to be meaningless surely? Will they put tax up, will my mortgage cost more, will there be more money for this and that gained through some purpose (taxing people who aren’t me?) are the kinds of questions I have either never seen answers to from them, or I have heard answers which then as Edwin notes were completely forgotten about during the coalition (I seem to remember Nick Clegg saying he was going to be more in favour of government spending than Labour were, and look how that turned out). It would be cleaner and simpler for them to disestablish and for people to just pick a side is my honest view!

 

[MattRat]

Like supporting the Cameron government?

What other option did they have? Support Brown? Who at the time was being blamed for the financial crisis....

 

[edwin_m]

What other option did they have? Support Brown? Who at the time was being blamed for the financial crisis....

I agree they didn't have any other option. I was calling out the comment that they were following left-wing policies.

 

[Mat17]

To my mind the Liberal party really ought to be more of a libertarian kind of party, individual liberty as you say. Smaller state, greater freedoms etc. The Liberals really turned from their roots when they got into bed with the SDP. They shouldn't be a socialist leaning party. That's the whole point of Labour.

 

[MattRat]

I agree they didn't have any other option. I was calling out the comment that they were following left-wing policies.

Well they have seemed to since the coalition ended. Probably in response to believing siding with the Conservatives was a mistake (debatable). Now they seem to come across as Labour lite.

 

[edwin_m]

Well they have seemed to since the coalition ended. Probably in response to believing siding with the Conservatives was a mistake (debatable). Now they seem to come across as Labour lite.

I think it's more that the Tories have moved rightwards. Mentioned above the LibDems oppose vaccine passports, which is well to the right of the centre of gravity of even the current Tory party.

A liberal approach to individual freedom must be conditional on avoiding harm to others. That part is too often ignored, including in the quote above from the LibDem constitution.

 

[MattRat]

I think it's more that the Tories have moved rightwards. Mentioned above the LibDems oppose vaccine passports, which is well to the right of the centre of gravity of even the current Tory party.

A liberal approach to individual freedom must be conditional on avoiding harm to others. That part is too often ignored, including in the quote above from the LibDem constitution.

Since when was protecting freedoms a right wing policy?

 

[edwin_m]

Since when was protecting freedoms a right wing policy?

That's the second time you seem to be unwilling or unable to respond to what I actually posted. I have better things to do than engage further in this pointless "dialogue".

 

[MattRat]

Mentioned above the LibDems oppose vaccine passports, which is well to the right of the centre of gravity of even the current Tory party.

That's the second time you seem to be unwilling or unable to respond to what I actually posted. I have better things to do than engage further in this pointless "dialogue".

I was referring to this part, where opposing vaccine passports, which themselves infringe upon freedoms, is considered right wing.

If you want to talk about your other part, well, what defines harm nowadays?

 

[A Challenge]

I was referring to this part, where opposing vaccine passports, which themselves infringe upon freedoms, is considered right wing.

If you want to talk about your other part, well, what defines harm nowadays?

Well apparently it doesn't include being forced to get government permission to go into a venue

 

[edwin_m]

I was referring to this part, where opposing vaccine passports, which themselves infringe upon freedoms, is considered right wing.

It's considered right wing because it's mostly right wingers that oppose them - see Steve Baker and similar.

 

[MattRat]

It's considered right wing because it's mostly right wingers that oppose them - see Steve Baker and similar.

It's just that 'right wing' is being used as a slur nowadays, which can then come across as a slur against freedom. If you didn't intend this, I apologise for my confusion.

 

[edwin_m]

It's just that 'right wing' is being used as a slur nowadays, which can then come across as a slur against freedom. If you didn't intend this, I apologise for my confusion.

I don't agree on much with the likes of Steve Baker, and I don't believe that opposiing vaccine mandates is promoting freedom, because it's causing harm to others. But I'm using "right wing" as a description not a slur.

 

[busmanaams]

The results for the last few days seems to suggest that the protest votes that perhaps once went to the LD's have gone Green.

You don't understand Scottish politics.

In what we call the South (but you might say England), politics is split Left or Right. But in Scotland, politics is split between Independence and Union.

There are three main pro-Union parties : Conservatives & Unionists, Labour, Liberal Democrat. For the half of the country that is pro-Union, as there is a choice of three, the weakest get squeezed. It also opens the door under the "first-past-the-post", this choice of three Unionist parties opens the door for anti-Union voters to steal a pro-Union seat

For the half who are pro-Independence, there is really only one choice - the Scottish National Party. For those who want to leave the Union but who will not vote SNP, there is the choice of the Greens.

As a consequence, the SNP hold the majority of the constituency seats with just a few Regional List seats.

 

[davehsug]

I think the point of the LibDems ought to be to advance a liberal vision of society, which is basically about championing individual liberty while also ensuring that everyone does have the means to fulfill their potential. The preamble to the LibDem constitution says it quite well I think:



To my mind, the problem is that the LibDems seem to have to some extent forgotten their roots and have allowed themselves to get enmeshed in left-wing politics and taking opportunistic stances on issues, without really thinking about how their policies relate to liberalism.

It may be seen as a mistake for the parties to have joined together, whilst they have much in common, there is after all, a difference between Liberals & Social Democrats. Charles Kennedy was definitely a Social Democrat, having moved from a Labour background, but Nick Clegg was an old style Liberal. Whilst the leadership in 2010 was mostly Liberal, the membership & voters were largely Social Democratic (even if the voters themselves didn't know that!) and the party leaned leftwards. That's why so many members & voters felt betrayed by the coalition, they'd have rather chewed off a limb than support "modern day" Tories.
Now, the Libdems are fishing in the same pool as Labour & the Greens (SNP in Scotland/Plaid in Wales), namely the 60% of voters who aren't Tory. The job of all of these parties, is to find a way to work together, at least for one GE and finally change the voting system to a properly proprtional one, so that all voters, from right to left, can have representation from people they agree with, rather then people they disagree least with.