Liberal Democrats Almost Wiped Out In Scotland!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/scotland/

Just had a chance to catch up with the election results. Looks like the LibDems are still being punished for their betrayal at the general election. Even the candidates listed collectively as "Others" have more councillors in Scotland than the LibDems. Who could only manage a poultry 71 with a massive number of 80 councillors lost. Mostly to the SNP and Labour. Their only consolation? They didn't lose control of any councils because they never controlled any outright.

Labour and the SNP are the big winners in Scotland. Which is hardly surprising considering the austerity measures and the independence debate going on at the moment. I thought the SNP might do better. But they did well to gain 57 councillors as did Labour with a gain of 58.

So how did the elections turn out in other areas? Did UK MAPpers get what they expected? Did anything about the results surprise anybody?

 

Good riddance

 

Good riddance to the LibDems? ...

 

I agree Mitch. I think sharing power with the Conservatives has killed them off. They keep claiming to be a moderating force on the Conservatives. Failing to realise we all know that's the job of the opposition in parliament. You can't be the opposition if you are the right hand of the government.

 

I think the Lib Dems are going to face real problems drumming up any support in the near future. Their problems as I see them are:

1. Their apparently fluid approach to principles means that no-one will feel comfortable voting for them from a position of ideology. People who are pro-evil will vote Conservative and not waste their time with the "mini conservative" Lib Dems, while people who hold any other viewpoints won't trust them not to switch sides of the aisle after an election.

2. They actively voted through the Health and Social Care Bill. Despite overwhelming public opposition, the Liberal Democrats added their votes to the marketisation of the health service. If there's any justice, that deserves to be a millstone round their necks.

3. They no longer have a distinctive political identity. Nick Clegg and Vince Cable did a fine job before the general election of making their (traditionally amorphous) party seem to offer a distinct identity of more liberal than New Labour and more socially conscious than the Conservatives. Since it turns out that they're willing to compromise on all of that, they're back to occupying no particular ground on the political spectrum. How do you invite people to vote for that?

 

I was a member of the Lib Dems since I was 16, I cancelled my membership when they came into power. In the London Mayoral Election no real surprise Boris won, I voted for the independent Siobhan Benita, and wrote none of the above for the other two votes.

I was such a huge fan of Nick Clegg and thought he could be the guy to really push Britain into a 3 party system maybe. He failed me.

 

What would you suggest? A war time coalition government across the board?

Edit: Thought I'd add, the 32% turnout really made me rage.

 

So what are you suggesting Mitch? A complete overhaul of how our Government functions? An alternative voting system? (Not the alternative voting system).

 

It is a shame and politics does need to become less polarised and less advisarial. However more important is effective opposition. Which is why the single transferable vote works so well in Scotland. For most of Scotland it has stopped any 1 party gaining over all control of a council. Which ironically the LibDems won as a concession while in coalition with Labour in the Scottish parliament.

I also think effective opposition is why the SNP worked so well in government as a minority government. They actually had to genuinely make the case for virtually every government policy they tried to implement via the Scottish parliament. Which meant they had to listen to and concede points to the other parties. Which in turn has been healthy for Scottish politics.

When opposition has enough power to do it's job and hold the government to account then politics works. When politicians believe they might lose their job. They're more inclined to work for the people and do the job they were sent to parliament to do.

As unpopular as the LibDems are right now. I think in the long term British politics will suffer if they implode as a party. Nick Clegg needs to swallow a bitter pill and pull them out of government. Put them back on the opposition benches where they will have the freedom to be critical of the government as much as they fell is needed. Where they can vote against government policies they feel are damaging to the country without having to compromise. Where if they want policy implemented or laws made, they can introduce a privet members bill.

The Conservatives, as a minority government, would have to be far more careful about policy. They would be forced to divulge the details before the vote. Which would mean they would actually have to have worked on those details first and we wouldn't have this nonsense situation of constant botched policies and u-turns.

 

Places like Bradford, Nottingham and one more city (I forget which) where given a referendum on mayors they didn't want one, also the referendum for devolution in England also failed. It doesn't seem to be a popular sentiment at the moment and I already think the London Mayor doesn't do a hell of a lot. Ban parties? So everyone would be an Independent? How would we choose our Prime Minister? Create a separate branch for the executive for like the Americans?

I could see you in a position as Pontifex Maximus...

 

We the people of the country strictly speaking don't choose a Prime Minister. When you vote in a general election you are voting for your local MP. Not the head of whichever party you like. The Queen then appoints a Prime Minister according to the traditions of parliamentary convention. Which at the moment is to appoint the leader of the party with the largest majority in the Commons capable of carrying the respect of the house. However in the past this convention has been somewhat different. The Prime Minister used to be appointed from the Lords.

So far as I know the Queen can technically and legal appoint just about anybody to the post of Prime Minister. Now clearly if the Queen or the Crown Office did something really stupid like appointing Prince Charles Prime Minister, we'd like to think our democratically elected members of parliament would revolt. Thus protecting the integrity of out democracy.

In a situation of a parliament of independents I think it would come down to reputation and political clout. Of all the MPs elected whomever was most respected and capable of leading the Commons and a government would be Prime Minister. And it would be up to the Crown Office to form an opinion on that for the Queen as they already do at the moment.

In short there would be no need to elect a Prime Minister separately because our electoral system is already flexible enough to cope.

 

I'm glad that this scam to have mayors in our major cities has been rejected by the electorate. It's just another piece of tory gerrymandering, reminiscent of the way that they abolished a whole tier of government (the Metropolitan counties) under Thatcher. Because they could never win a majority on them, they did away with them.

Similarly, they hoped that by reducing local politics to a popularity contest, they could gain political control of our cities in the way that they have done in London - despite the fact that they can never get a majority in the London assembly.

 

I'm aware of how our politics is SUPPOSED to work, but the common voter doesn't vote like this.

 

I think that people are missing the point they are still tied into the idea of a two party state, when in fact they are voting for the same policies when they vote conservative or labour. Look at the mess the last labour government got us into, huge mountain of debt caused by deregulation of the banks under Brown and his treasury ministers balls and milliband, and then a bailout of these banks funded by taxpayers money.what have you got under cameron?pretty much the same sought of thing. You either let the banks fail or you introduce "Austerity measures"
Look at the rest of Europe the same thing applies and under the tories as under Labour we still don't get a refurendum on Europe and more money is pledged to save Europe in fact exactly the amount that was being saved by cuts in the civil service about £11 Billion.
Then look at the politicians themselves. Tony Bliar is now wokring for J.P.Morgan stanley, the other Milliband for an Indian bank, Balls has a brother who is a banker. The prime ministers of Italy and Greece are ex bankers.the whole thing is massively corrupt

Quote
For the Labour Party, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls claims that the consensus is changing across Europe, away from spending cuts. But in reality Labour agrees with imposing the burden of the crisis onto the backs of working people—as can be seen up and down the country in Labour-controlled local authorities, where workers have been sacked and much needed services cut.

In January, Labour leader Ed Miliband pledged that a Labour government would adhere to “tough new fiscal rules”. For his part, Ed Balls has refused to promise to reverse the government’s public spending cuts. Speaking on Newsnight at the end of last year, he said the government was cutting “too far and too fast” but that Labour had to be “realistic” when dealing with the economic crisis.

One thing is certain: the cuts are only just beginning. In its 2010 Spending Review, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat government announced proposals to cut public spending by £81 billion by 2014-15. Ninety percent of these cuts—£77 billion—have yet to come into effect.
source
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/may2012/ukec-m05.shtml

 

Well it's one thing to have a policy. Being able to execute on that policy is a whole different ball game. And frankly I don't think any of our top politicians have a clue on how to execute a plan to bring down national debt while meeting the needs of the country.

On the subject of the bank bailouts. It had to happen. If the banks hadn't been bailed out our economy would have collapsed completely. The government is the lender of last resort and we the tax payer are the governments primary source of funding. So unless you can figure out a way to change that then we will always be picking up the tab. That's the risk we take for having the type of economy we have. Which nobody was complaining about when the banks were financing 100%+ mortgages for ludicrously over priced houses.

I think perhaps the mistake Cameron and Osborne made when coming to government was to cut funding before having a plan to replace the old with something new. Depressingly it's a mistake the Tories always make. Another mistake both major parties made was to rely on quantitative easing as a stimulus to get the banks lending again. History tells us banks will not lend in this type of economic climate. What the government should be doing is giving money directly to small and medium sized British businesses. Take the banks out of the equation.