The Lib Dems were stuck in a lose-lose-lose situation as soon as the polls closed on Thursday. Join Labour? Voters will leave who lean right. Join the Conservatives? Voters will levae who lean left. Do nothing? Voters will want a majority in the next election and vote Labour or Conservative.
Qualities in short supply when you are playing one party off against another. The Tories *are* socially liberal - Liberal does not mean 'left'; it means supporting personal freedoms, as opposed to more authoritarian approaches (of Labour?). The Tories support choice, and freedom from a large intrusive government. They are also democratic - but they don't support the Lib Dems preference for the Single Transferable vote for the very reasons we have seen this week. The Lib Dems support the Tories' stance on ID Card, DNA databases and the like... and they are also democratic, yet ironically support a federal Europe and adoption of the Euro - which is far less democratic. Not only have the left hijacked words like liberal and democratic, but my personal favourite is 'progressive'. We've heard about the progressive coalition this week... but progressive means incremental change. Virtually all parties are in *that* camp. The Tories are progressive and reformist - it's just that they don't necessarily want to make exactly the same changes as every other party. Interestingly that the first 'Progressive Party' in the US was the precursor to the Republican party! Sacrificing party objectives for government stability in difficult times might actually make them the 2nd largest party next time around. Secretly prostituting themselves to the highest bidder might work against them. They are opposed to the Tories on Europe. They have different - but not opposing - views on taxation and the economy, the nuclear deterrent and on electoral systems. They have common ground on education, the economy, civil liberties, and the need for a change in government. There are less differences between any of the 3 major parties than in most other nations - all three are fighting for the same centre-ground. Likewise a Lab-Lib pact, but the country needs stability one way or another. If they wanted a Lib-Tory coalition, voting Tory would be a stupid way to go about it given that it would have meant a tory majority. Voting Lib Dem, creating a hung parliament and then forming a Lib-Tory coalition seems (unsurprisingly) the best way of getting a Lib-Tory coalition! If we are on the subject of pre-election aspirations, I don't think they were hoping for a net drop in popular support and a net drop in parliamentary seats - so the chance to have a meaningful impact on government for the next 4 years is something akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Perhaps this year, voting Lib Dem != Get Labour. Perhaps, they weren't wasted votes at all.
That's my point, by taking the higher ground and accepting that their core beliefs are different to those of the tories, the Lid Dems can maintain their dignity and integrity. I disagree. The tories are the party who can most likely be relied upon to scupper any chances at gay marriage in the next few years. They appeal to the Daily Mail hate group/readership precisely because they support man + woman + 2.4 Children. The tories are economically liberal (which is the sense of liberal which most people do not use it in), but socially liberal? I don't think so. They are democratic to the extent that labour are yes, but neither party seems to seriously consider election reform to be important, where to my mind it clearly is. The way power is divided up in this country, and the fact that the majority of people don't get represented by who they want to, is a poor reflection of our democracy. I agree about the tories on ID cards, a stance I applaud, however I suspect that the tories oppose national ID and DNA databases more from the perspective of saving money than of maintaining civil liberties. Furthermore, I do not see how you can argue that supportin a federal EU or the adoption of the Euro are undemocratic. Anyway, I understand very well the word liberal, in all it's varities. Are you meaning here that sacrificing party objectives would be prostituting themselves? Because I think that it does, but I'm not sure you intended it to come off like that. My point was that attaining power at the short or long term expense of ones beliefs is a very immoral thing to do. If a party is willing to change it's stripes in order to gain power, then who are they working for? Themselves, is who they are working for at that point, since they are no longer representing the views and beliefs of those who voted for them. I hardly think you can say they don't oppose each other on taxation. The tories want to raise taxes the least and lower spending the most, the lib dems want to raise taxes the most and lower spending the least. Those sound like opposing views to me. The tories are strongly in favour of both nuclear power and weapons, but the Lib Dems seem to (madly) want to get rid of Trident, and also of nuclear power. The tories want to maintain FPTP pretty strongly, the Lib Dems want AV or PR in ASAP. Again, opposing viewpoints. Some common ground can be found in education, not much in the economy, and as far as civil liberties go, I'd say that the Lib Dems are fairly separate from the tories. IIRC only the lib dems are opposing(and now wanting to repeal) the digital economies bill. Any party that actually gives a toss about civil liberties could not support that bill. Likewise a Lab-Lib pact, but the country needs stability one way or another. If they wanted a Lib-Tory coalition, voting Tory would be a stupid way to go about it given that it would have meant a tory majority. Voting Lib Dem, creating a hung parliament and then forming a Lib-Tory coalition seems (unsurprisingly) the best way of getting a Lib-Tory coalition! If we are on the subject of pre-election aspirations, I don't think they were hoping for a net drop in popular support and a net drop in parliamentary seats - so the chance to have a meaningful impact on government for the next 4 years is something akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat. Perhaps this year, voting Lib Dem != Get Labour. Perhaps, they weren't wasted votes at all.[/QUOTE]
You might be right about gay marriage, but it is not the cornerstone of Liberalism. However, the older Tories are against such ideas, but Cameron and the new breed aren't - and with Lib Dem support they might be able to ring the necessary changes. PS. Not all Tories read the Mail any more than Labour supporters are bound by the mirror. And until there was hung parliament, 'electoral reform' was on the back-burner because it is not the most pressing issue - the economy is. However, my biggest gripe is the idea that PR is somehow more democratic than any other system. It isn't - it simply has different faults and biases. Yes, it would allow more fringe parties into the fray, which is a mixed blessing, but I wonder how much it would matter to the Lib Dems if they weren't to be the single biggest beneficiary. On the downside, it splits votes, and as we have seen this week, we are not well adapted for coalition government.Having you complain about the Lib Dems working with the Tories is especially galling - I though the benefit of coalition government is that of cooperation and consensus? Or is that only the case when it is with another party you are sympathetic to. Opponents of PR have been handed a boost with all the sneaking and wheeling and dealing going on this week. Brown should have resigned immediately, there should have been no attempt at a losers coalition - it should have been a Tory coalition or a Tory minority government.[/quote] Why? There is nothing in recent or ancient Tory history to suggest anything else. Only your cynicism. If the entire country voted BNP or Communist party they still couldn't change the direction of a federal Europe. Take Ireland as another example - verdict on Lisbon Treaty - No! Reaction of euro federalists? Keep going until we get a yes. Even the Independent questioned the EUs democratic credentials. No, and that is not what I said. Compromising with the worthy goal of creating a stable government is laudable. Playing the Tories off against Labour to see who will give the most for cooperation lacks integrity. Were they seriously prepared to prop up an outgoing government? Why the secret telephone calls and meetings behind the Tories backs, especially after Fridays declaration that the Tories deserved the opportunity to form a coalition. As we can see, it's not like the Tories weren't serious in their offer (unlike labour). Yeah, I completely agree. Not. Why did Sinn Fein stand for election at Stormont when they were previously engaged in a war against our state and are still pushing for reunification with Ireland? Because they decided that they could do more in government than they could do if they were on the outside looking in.
I guess the irony of having liberal form a government when they came 3rd and the Majority voted Tory. as I've said look at northern Ireland if you want what PR is about. People will tend to vote extremes since they're afraid one party will get more than the other which can lead to stale mate. I would take that further and say when was the last time you got any say about what went on in Europe. How many countries got their vote on the Lisbon Treaty? Apart from choosing your "representive" we get no control of what goes on in Europe. don't forget to add that an unstable dithering government also does more damage to the ecconomy. How much debt is the country in? The markets need a stable government. To be fair they probably could do more if they actually took their seats, just a pity it isn't required to claim expenses eh?
