Lib Dems to Blame for Con losses?

mcfisco

zagfles wrote: »

What's the alternative then, stay in opposition permanently? What's the point of even entering politics if you're not interested in power?

Sort of depends what sort of majority the Gov of the days has doesn't it?
They could have done so much more outside of the coalition and a permanent thorn in the side
The 'Alternative' they've chosen is a walk into the wilderness for a generation

kabayiri

zagfles wrote: »

What's the alternative then, stay in opposition permanently? What's the point of even entering politics if you're not interested in power?

The LibDems were always a protest vote, they were always going to lose that when they got power. But what's the point of even being there if you don't take power when the opportunity arsies?

I agree in that I think they should seize any opportunity they can.

Personally, I don't like the idea of an opposition party effectively 'in power' at a local level. They might be tempted to screw up central policy implementation.

Let's face it. We need a massive amount of cost reduction implementation. We don't need politicos playing silly b*ggers with each other.

ash28

zagfles wrote: »

Very selective!! Labour are about 9 points ahead at the moment. If you look at mid term when they were previously in opposition, they were regularly well over 20, sometimes over 30 points ahead!!

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1992-1997

Current lead is about what they had mid term 1989-1990, when they went on to lose the next general election.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/historical-polls/voting-intention-1987-1992

Thought so - I knew they'd (Labour) had won a number of local elections and that they hadn't turned in to general election wins.

chucky

alleycat` wrote: »

I can't think how any government is going to be popular when the economy is in the tank and people are generally assaulted by "DOOM" every single day from the press.

The turnout / apathy in a lot of areas probably speaks volumes about what people generally think about party politics.

How come Thatcher managed to deal with the same type of situation and dealt with it. People shouldn't be looking for excuses, that's what people do when things have gone wrong - use excuses to justify poor performance.

Look at the people in charge, their policies and how they've gone about things instead of coming up with excuses.

zagfles

mcfisco wrote: »

Sort of depends what sort of majority the Gov of the days has doesn't it?
They could have done so much more outside of the coalition and a permanent thorn in the side
The 'Alternative' they've chosen is a walk into the wilderness for a generation

Depends why they entered politics. To just "oppose" all the time, or to actually do something.

Trouble is a lot of their voters didn't actually want them in power, the sort who like to say "well I didn't vote for them" when the govt becomes unpopular. It happened after the Lib-Lab pact in the 70's.

But they'll achieve more of their aims with 5 years in power than 50 years in opposition.

Jennifer_Jane

kabayiri wrote: »

Why should councillors at local level be organised on party lines?

I just want the right councillor in my ward who will make sure local issues are dealt with.

Absolutely agree! We didn't have an election this time, but the key debating issue last time was the introduction of parking charges. Hardly of concern to the Nation, but an irritation for us locally.

alleycat`

chucky wrote: »

How come Thatcher managed to deal with the same type of situation and dealt with it. People shouldn't be looking for excuses, that's what people do when things have gone wrong - use excuses to justify poor performance.

Look at the people in charge, their policies and how they've gone about things instead of coming up with excuses.

History says she had a war when it looked like she was on the way out.
I'm not sure how true but that is what most of the reports of the day suggest.

As to the problem generally. My opinion is that the current system punishes anyone in power that needs to do what must be done. By and large what needs to be done is not going to be a vote winner.

Nobody wants to squirrel away nuts in times of plenty.
That is quite apparent.

paulmapp8306

Basically because most dont care about loal government - and those that do dont always vote for the same party as they would in a general.

Local voting is on local issues - national voting on national ones. I dont believe anyone voted for a Labour councilor because there anti the Coalition giovernmenty - when that labour councilor has no control over national issues.

mcfisco

But they'll achieve more of their aims with 5 years in power than 50 years in opposition.

So, 2 years in -exactly how many of their manifesto aims have they achieved?

zagfles

mcfisco wrote: »

So, 2 years in -exactly how many of their manifesto aims have they achieved?

Off the top of my head - raising the tax threshold, pupil premium, stopping ID cards, no third runway at Heathrow, no rise in the inheritance tax threshold, banning clamping. Not bad considering they're the minor party in govt and it's only 2 years in.