Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

The Lib Dems sold their souls for a chance of power watch

Announcements
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    It's just people venting their rather baseless hot air.

    This level of criticism comes with the territory of being engaged in the actual decision making of high-level politics.

    It's up to the public to decide whether it's a two party game that isn't big enough for the Liberal Democrats. In which case, we'll be heading head-first into an American style two-party style government with a few anomalies here and there.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry, but surely the entire point of the LibDems, as with any political party, is to seek power and affect policy in accordance their political views. How exactly the LibDems could ever be seen to have 'sold out' for power and influence is beyond me.

    I realise this may be controversial, but the main duty of the LibDems was never to provide another option to lefty protest voters who wanted the chance to vote whilst maintaining the ability to, when whoever ended up in government did something vaguely unpopular, turn around and say, 'well don't blame me, I voted liberal!'
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    The Lib Dems pretty much stand for everything the Tories don't in many ways.
    By allowing them to gain power and do what they wanted, they exacted a few, pretty much meaningless concessions, BUT, more importantly, were able to water down some of the more rich-loving policies.

    Hence, they sold their souls for power.
    I do feel bad for them in a way, because Labour will point at the LDs and say "look at what voting yellow got you last time... blue."
    And it'll probably work.
    But really, we're better off with a hint of yellow in the blue than a full blue, so I see the LDs as the martyrs of the political world.
    The Batman at the end of the Dark Knight if you will.
    Not really. The Lib Dems have something of a weird dichotomy in views between efficiently-regulated free-market liberalism (which is strongly in line with the modern conservative consensus) and the democratic socialists on the other side. They could have sided with either side fairly comfortably on an ideological platform, but the membership base is generally socially liberal and view that as more important than the mildly conservative economic platform that both parties share and used as the cornerstone of the coalition. It's harder to marry Tory and Lib Dem social policy than it is economic policy, thus many of the party's members felt betrayed in some way (I didn't)

    To be fair, the Lib Dems were dealt an impossible card at the election. If they hadn't taken power, they would have forfeited the point of being a political party, which is ultimately to gain power in some form. They would also have been seen as grossly irresponsible and punished quickly at the inevitably quick next general election, for failing to support the Tories who were perceived to have done the best at the election. If they had sided with Labour, it would have gone horribly wrong due to about 7 different parties demanding different things. Siding with the Tories was the only real option and they have managed to get things done, particularly in areas where party policy is shared or similar.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    The Lib Dems pretty much stand for everything the Tories don't in many ways.
    By allowing them to gain power and do what they wanted, they exacted a few, pretty much meaningless concessions, BUT, more importantly, were able to water down some of the more rich-loving policies.

    Hence, they sold their souls for power.
    I do feel bad for them in a way, because Labour will point at the LDs and say "look at what voting yellow got you last time... blue."
    And it'll probably work.
    But really, we're better off with a hint of yellow in the blue than a full blue, so I see the LDs as the martyrs of the political world.
    The Batman at the end of the Dark Knight if you will.
    Bull****.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    I'm sorry, but surely the entire point of the LibDems, as with any political party, is to seek power and affect policy in accordance their political views. How exactly the LibDems could ever be seen to have 'sold out' for power and influence is beyond me.

    I realise this may be controversial, but the main duty of the LibDems was never to provide another option to lefty protest voters who wanted the chance to vote whilst maintaining the ability to, when whoever ended up in government did something vaguely unpopular, turn around and say, 'well don't blame me, I voted liberal!'
    This, this, this!

    :borat:
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    People think there is a major difference between the Lib dems an Tories, there isn't, there also isn't a major difference between Labour and Tories. They're all pretty centre these days, and disagree on only a few issues.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Lib Dems will get battered in the next election

    The only reason they got the votes they did (which in fact didnt even live up to the hype) was a few labour voters defecting and mainly ppl who just wanted labour out, but this backfired as it let tories in. Everyone knows what a joke and unrealistic the Lib Dems are (just saying anythign cos u;ll never be in power doesnt work anymore) and this was their only chance to have any influence.

    As a labour support im happy tht the Tories are the majority and not the Lib Dems as we'd be facing an even more of a nightmare than we currently are.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I don't agree with the argument that the Lib Dems are having an effect on the Tories. I don't see any of their policies getting through, even their golden 'Electoral Reform' part of the deal, seems that it won't materialise, which is a HUGE disappointment. Nick Clegg is just a lap dog of Cameron's now.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by derangedyoshi)
    In more than one constituency, the Lib Dem candidate got elected by attacking the Labour candidate from the left. They effectively got elected by saying "we'll keep the Tories out". It's understandable that Lib Dem voters are angry that they are now effectively propping up a Tory government.
    Yeah, this is the root of the arguement for selling out. The amount of people who I met when campaigning kept saying they'd vote LD to keep the Tories out. In my constituency, our brilliant LD MP's only main rival was the Tory so to go from saying that we'd be keeping the Tories out to jumping in to bed with them was hard to take. However, as most of the papers say, why want to be involved in politics if you dont want power.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Bektas)
    They have basically ruled themselves out for outright power for the next election when they jumped in bed with the Tories.
    And they were looking at not being able to gain power for the next 20 years anyway
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Because a lot of people got swept up in 'Cleggamania' and didn't really know anything about the party they were voting for.

    People seemed to be under the impression that Cons and Lib Dems are polar-opposites when it simply isn't the case.

    Lib Dems are third party with their own ideals separate from both Labour and Conservatives and hold no ties or loyalties to either. Why people think the Liberal Democrats hold loyalties to the most authoritarian party (Labour) out there second only to the BNP I have no idea




    I thought Lib Dem supporters would be happy at the opportunity to get into power. Apparently not. It seems people would rather the Lib Dems had left the Tories trying to run on a minority government or formed a highly unstable 'rainbow coalition' Labour, leaving the country unable to make decisions despite us being in the middle of an economic recession in need of strong government. Not to mention that both of those options would have ended in an inevitable reelection a few months after in which the Tories would have got a majority allowing them to pass legislation unhindered.

    Basically, people have let stupid and misplaced emotions blind sense and reason and whats best for the country
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I understand the arguments for HOW they have sold out, my question is about their motivation for doing so.

    People say, "its because they wanted power"

    If their sole motivation was gaining power, why not go into a coalition with Labour instead?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elandar)
    I understand the arguments for HOW they have sold out, my question is about their motivation for doing so.

    People say, "its because they wanted power"

    If their sole motivation was gaining power, why not go into a coalition with Labour instead?
    Pretty obvious isn't it? Labour and the Liberals together would still have been a minority. Adding on the Nationalists would have made the coalition crippled with disparate views, and they'd still be accused of grabbing power.

    Working with the Conservatives was the only constructive way.

    I don't think it's fair to say it's simply because they wanted power, either. Nobody would be in politics if they didn't want power, and the Lib Dems are no exception. The Lib Dems believe that cooperation and coalition are the best ways of dealing with problems, and the only way they can demonstrate that is by going into a coalition.

    A coalition is a coalition is a coalition. If they'd gone with Labour, it's no more and no less terrible/wonderful than with their present arrangement with the Conservatives.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Basically, a lot of it is because they don't like the Tories. It was the only logical option TBH, Labour lost their mandate to govern in the last election and to join with the Lib Dems and form a "losers" coalition (for lack of a better phrase) is highly undemocratic (not that coalitions of any sort are democratic...).
    I was going to say...

    If Labour 'lost their mandate to govern' then the Lib Dems had even less of a mandate to join in a governing coalition with fewer votes and fewer MPs. But yeah, that's the system.

    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    2) Coalition with the Conservatives was the only logical option - a losers coalition with Labour would have less mandate than this coalition to govern.
    That's wholly subjective opinion. Coalition to achieve the requisite number of seats is what gives 'mandate' to govern. What you perceive as more or less fair is just a reflection of your political views... others disagree and I know of many who would have preferred a Labour + Lib Dem coalition (not me personally, however).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    I was going to say...

    If Labour 'lost their mandate to govern' then the Lib Dems had even less of a mandate to join in a governing coalition with fewer votes and fewer MPs. But yeah, that's the system.
    True, but a minority government is not good for anyone, and holding election after election until we have a majority government is highly undemocratic.

    That's wholly subjective opinion. Coalition to achieve the requisite number of seats is what gives 'mandate' to govern. What you perceive as more or less fair is just a reflection of your political views... others disagree and I know of many who would have preferred a Labour + Lib Dem coalition (not me personally, however).
    It'd be like Man Utd and Arsenal teaming up to beat Chelsea in the Premier League, having Labour and the LDs join in a coalition.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DJkG.1)
    I was going to say...

    If Labour 'lost their mandate to govern' then the Lib Dems had even less of a mandate to join in a governing coalition with fewer votes and fewer MPs. But yeah, that's the system.
    True, but a minority government is not good for anyone, and holding election after election until we have a majority government is highly undemocratic.

    That's wholly subjective opinion. Coalition to achieve the requisite number of seats is what gives 'mandate' to govern. What you perceive as more or less fair is just a reflection of your political views... others disagree and I know of many who would have preferred a Labour + Lib Dem coalition (not me personally, however).
    It'd be like Man Utd and Arsenal teaming up to beat Chelsea in the Premier League, having Labour and the LDs join in a coalition.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)


    It'd be like Man Utd and Arsenal teaming up to beat Chelsea in the Premier League, having Labour and the LDs join in a coalition.
    It really wouldn't have been.
    Chelsea didn't win the Premier league in that analogy either.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mann18)
    It really wouldn't have been.
    Chelsea didn't win the Premier league in that analogy either.
    Reading it back, it's a poor analogy - but you see the point I'm trying to get through. People say that the coalition has no mandate to govern, when a Lib Lab coalition would have even less mandate.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Reading it back, it's a poor analogy - but you see the point I'm trying to get through. People say that the coalition has no mandate to govern, when a Lib Lab coalition would have even less mandate.
    I do see your point.

    And I agree, had there been a LIb-Lab coaliton, it would rather have been anti-democratic.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    No, not anti-democratic, not even undemocratic, just difficult to sustain in Parliament. Otherwise a minority government is also anti/undemocratic.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.