UK constitutional debate

[InsaneApache]

UKIP gains first MP, also comes second to Labour in another By-Election.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29549414

Aye vote Tory get Milliband!

ROFLOL

They still don't get it do they? Change is coming and That Right Soon.

[Pannonian]

Aye vote Tory get Milliband!

ROFLOL

They still don't get it do they? Change is coming and That Right Soon.

Rhetoric reminiscent of believers in "the cause".

[LittleGrizzly]

The one positive about UKIP is they can split the right wing vote whilst looking unlikely to get any serious power themselves, although it may seem a bad thing on the surface for too long in the UK has the right wing vote been solidly behind one party whilst the left wing vote has been split between at least a couple (just talking the major ones)

A stronger UKIP means less Tory governments. Now if only the major parties were actually left wing.....

[Seamus Fermanagh]

... Now if only the major parties were actually left wing.....

In practical terms, don't they pretty much have to be somewhat centrist to end up as a major party?

[Pannonian]

In practical terms, don't they pretty much have to be somewhat centrist to end up as a major party?

All parties have to adhere to some Thatcherite tenets to be deemed electable by the electorate. Socialism and the Labour party in its old form is pretty much dead. The old Tory party isn't much better. The old ideas of communal rights (Labour) and responsibilities (Tories) hardly exist any more, in England at least. Nowadays it's all about individual rights (neo-liberalism, aka Thatcherism).

[Seamus Fermanagh]

All parties have to adhere to some Thatcherite tenets to be deemed electable by the electorate. Socialism and the Labour party in its old form is pretty much dead. The old Tory party isn't much better. The old ideas of communal rights (Labour) and responsibilities (Tories) hardly exist any more, in England at least. Nowadays it's all about individual rights (neo-liberalism, aka Thatcherism).

Ultimately, all governments must balance all four for real, long-term success. I'm all for individual rights and responsibilities -- Reagan was my first Presidential choice when I became a voter (and it was an active choice, not an acknowledgement that Fritz was second tier as a candidate). Even so, communal rights and responsibilities must be part of an effective system as well.

I'd probably draw the intersect point a little differently than would you, but you cannot ignore the second vector entirely.

[Pannonian]

Ultimately, all governments must balance all four for real, long-term success. I'm all for individual rights and responsibilities -- Reagan was my first Presidential choice when I became a voter (and it was an active choice, not an acknowledgement that Fritz was second tier as a candidate). Even so, communal rights and responsibilities must be part of an effective system as well.

I'd probably draw the intersect point a little differently than would you, but you cannot ignore the second vector entirely.

Vector is the right word to describe the opposing angles of communalism (old school UK politics) and individualism (post-Thatcher UK politics). The latter is free market capitalism as applied to politics, with the language of the market being used to define politics (why settle for less when you can have it all, now, at no cost?). If your whole society is used to the language of the market, it takes a conscious effort to force yourself to think in a different mode, where the customer isn't the omnipotent centre of the world. If the electorate is conditioned to think in that way, how can the government act any differently and expect to be (re-)elected?

[a completely inoffensive name]

The one positive about UKIP is they can split the right wing vote whilst looking unlikely to get any serious power themselves, although it may seem a bad thing on the surface for too long in the UK has the right wing vote been solidly behind one party whilst the left wing vote has been split between at least a couple (just talking the major ones)

A stronger UKIP means less Tory governments. Now if only the major parties were actually left wing.....

I would say you are still screwed. From my understanding Labour is not even that far off from the Tories anymore and the Lib Dems formed a coalition with the party they identify the least with. Who is going to trust either? More likely the left will lose morale and turn up less for elections in the near future. Meanwhile the UKIP is giving right leaning voters a choice in the matter and is more likely to energize voters who identify along those lines. The vote may be split among them, but together they are still going to dominate the national conversation and thus the direction your country takes.

[Beskar]

Lib-Dem coalition was to prevent the age old argument of "Lib Dems have no experience in power", a coalition with Labour wouldn't have worked, especially as Gordon Brown wouldn't have stepped down and they didn't have enough to form the said government. (unless it also recruited SNP, Cymru, Greens and Sinn Fein)

So it was either, minority Conservative government, or try to use the opportunity to better themselves. Unfortunately, the move heavily backfired and even though the lib-dems tempered the conservatives, the electorate never forgave them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Lib-Dem coalition was to prevent the age old argument of "Lib Dems have no experience in power", a coalition with Labour wouldn't have worked, especially as Gordon Brown wouldn't have stepped down and they didn't have enough to form the said government. (unless it also recruited SNP, Cymru, Greens and Sinn Fein)

So it was either, minority Conservative government, or try to use the opportunity to better themselves. Unfortunately, the move heavily backfired and even though the lib-dems tempered the conservatives, the electorate never forgave them.

It was obvious they should have forced a minority Conservative government. The Lib-Dems painted themselves as the outsiders, of course it was going to backfire when they began bargaining with the devil. The people who supported them probably didn't care "they have no experience in power" they just wanted a party with the numbers and the will to push big reforms into the public dialogue. I don't follow your politics that much, but "tempering" the conservatives only led to temperedconservative policies and a half assed push for electoral reform which failed spectacularly. What a joke the Lib-Dem leadership is. Maybe they really don't know anything about politics and power.

[Rhyfelwyr]

If anything, the idea that the Lib Dems had no experience in power might have worked to their advantage nowadays with all the anti-establishment rhetoric. But now nobody is in doubt that they are looking out for their interests as a party and in that regard are no different from Labour/Tories.

As for UKIP, hopefully if they do make a push to gain disaffected Labour voters, they will temper their extreme Thatcherite stance on economic issues. You can only get so far with a populist stance on immigration/Europe.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Lib-Dem coalition was to prevent the age old argument of "Lib Dems have no experience in power", a coalition with Labour wouldn't have worked, especially as Gordon Brown wouldn't have stepped down and they didn't have enough to form the said government. (unless it also recruited SNP, Cymru, Greens and Sinn Fein)

So it was either, minority Conservative government, or try to use the opportunity to better themselves. Unfortunately, the move heavily backfired and even though the lib-dems tempered the conservatives, the electorate never forgave them.

Terrible for them to be punished for good government and prioritising the national interest.

It's primarily because the "Left" like to describe the Tories as the "nasty party", a term actually coined as a warning by the current home secretary and true of none of the Cons currently in parliament - although some of the Cabinet in the 1980's are on record as being fairly nasty.

I don't honestly think it was to "prevent the age old argument..." I think Nick Clegg saw it as being in the national interest, and a genuine opportunity to do some good. On that basis I think he has been wildly successful - it's also forced him to admit that eliminating tuition fees whilst widening access was never a viable policy - contrary to what Tim Farron said recently.

But then, Tim Farron has never been in government, has he?

[Beskar]

I think Nick Clegg made the right move, unfortunately, it seems no one else felt the same. Also, all those "What Party are you?" all annoyingly put me closer to the Lib-dems than anyone else, at least if it said 'the greens', it would be a party which is gaining support opposed to slash'n burnt.