-
Welcome to Stafford Forum. Please or sign-up and start posting!
End of the Lib Dems?
- Thread starter John Marwood
- Start date
johnny come lately
Well-Known Forumite
Sorry I didn't pick this up earlier. I live in Stafford so you would not be my ward member so i have no need to contact you and ask 'why' - but others may want to especially if nothing has been written or reported about you being a former Lib Dem because they would never know.breeze567 said:
You can't deny that it can appear suspicious that there are former lib dems who are not standing as such at these local elections. Also, there does not seem to be as many lib dem candidates standing in our local elections than before.
I wanted to share that with the forum and you of course have the opportunity to reply on the forum..which you have done.
In your own words you were a lib dem who has turned your back on the party because of their recent decisions in gvt and is now standing in local elections as an independent - I'd say that wasn't a 'non story.'
'
johnny come lately
Well-Known Forumite
Diane - in other posts I have mentioned people with political ambitions being open. It always helps to dispel allegations of covering up.johnny come lately said:
You took the opportunity to do this on the forum. Credit for that.
It would also have been helpful if you had mentioned, if the newspaper is correct, that you are the 'partner' of Barry Stamp, the leader of the Lid Dem group on the council.
You may say it is irrelevant as your views are your own, but as i said above, it gives a fuller picture when you are standing for office.
Apologies if the Post are not correct with their information
Finally - bad luck on the election result. I said in a previous post I don't know why anyone would want to be a councillor for all the hassle it can bring so I do respect people who are prepaperd to have a go.
These are a couple of references in Post this week
The LIBERAL DEMOCRATS are contesting only nine seats, 16 fewer than last time and the fewest for three decades. The wards they are contesting are Barlaston and Oulton, Baswich, Church Eaton, Forebridge, Manor and Rowley. Two other hopefuls’ nominations were declared invalid for technical reasons.
Liberal Democrat leader Barry Stamp’s partner, Diane Keys, is again standing in Seighford, but as an independent.
Full link: http://icstafford.icnetwork.co.uk/news/localnews//tm_headline=referendum-adds-up-to-double-vote-in-may-poll%26method=full%26objectid=28633323%26siteid=87875-name_page.html
Gramaisc
Forum O. G.
It must be very dispiriting to be committed to a political party, for the right reasons, and then find it usurped by people who don't really believe in what they find it convenient to carry on saying, but not doing. There were, presumably, Tories who felt this when Thatcher appeared ( well, a few more than just Ted Heath ) and there definitely were hordes when Blair took over the Labour Party.
Standing up and walking away, rather than passively supporting the 'Big Man', may well be what is required - rather than just hoping that they really will follow the true line. We have a good bit of evidence that the new shepherd will ignore his remaining sheep and pursue his own personal agenda at the expense of the party faithful...
Edit:- Just realised it's not 'hoards' - doh!...
Standing up and walking away, rather than passively supporting the 'Big Man', may well be what is required - rather than just hoping that they really will follow the true line. We have a good bit of evidence that the new shepherd will ignore his remaining sheep and pursue his own personal agenda at the expense of the party faithful...
Edit:- Just realised it's not 'hoards' - doh!...
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Business Secretary Cable 'is fined £500 for unpaid tax bill
The morph is complete..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053555/Business-Secretary-Cable-fined-500-unpaid-tax-bill.html
The morph is complete..
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053555/Business-Secretary-Cable-fined-500-unpaid-tax-bill.html
Wolfenrook
Well-Known Forumite
I didn't vote in the last 2 general elections, and yes I consider myself to be a politically opinionated person. Why did I not bother to vote? Because I see it as totally and utterly pointless. We don't actually even live in a democracy for one thing. Why do I say this? Well let's examine our system shall we.
You vote for your local MP, NOT the party you want to govern the country. Take a long hard look at this and you will see that this contradicts itself. 1) It means that you have folks voting for a local MP they would never dream of, just to get the party they want to see in government get in, often buggering themselves up in the process. 2) If you DO vote for a local MP who is worth a damn, you could well find yourself helping to elect a party into power who you wouldn't vote for otherwise. That's just a stupid system.
You don't elect a leader, you vote for a party. Uhm, again, that's stupid. It means that you basically hand a bunch of tossers the power to decide who leads the country. You can argue all you like that the PM doesn't lead the country, that the party does, and I will argue that if you believe that you are clearly totally and utterly blind. The PM instructs his party on pretty much everything, and they WILL toe the line or get out. At best, you are electing electors, you're NOT chosing who will lead the country.
With the current system, your vote doesn't even matter. My evidence supporting this? The last general election, in the ward we were living in at the time, one of the candidates died a couple of weeks before the election. They cancelled ours until AFTER the results were in. If that isn't proof positive that your vote doesn't matter, what is?
This last general election, 1000s were turned away from polling stations, it was a huge joke, again proving that your vote doesn't matter.
The LibDems got the majority of votes, yet let's cut through the crap, tell it how it is, we have a CONSERVATIVE government. The policies I see etc are conservative ones, not LibDem. The country didn't even get the party they voted for, they got a Conservative PM, despite the majority voting LibDem. The party they voted for, well he's only the DEPUTY PM, he's not even the PM. How the F did that happen? What dick decided to give the UNELECTED Conservatives the PM position, and yes the power? That's right, the LibDems, NOT the people who voted. So why the F did ANYBODY bother to vote ffs?
I have yet to see a political party in the UK get it right, every single election we end up with more jackasses buggering things up still more. Why? Because we have a dumb assed combination of first past the post elections with this stupid assed cabinet+PM system. This is NOT democracy. If we lived in a democracy we would have 2 elections. 1 for your local senator type person, 1 for the man/woman leading the senate as a chairperson, with the senate actually voting on the decisions, not some poxy leader who passes down instructions, or bull shit party policies.
As things stand, to quote Orwell, whoever you vote for, the government gets in. There's little to chose between them, and most of the time your vote wont even count anyway unless you live in one of those seats that actually matter...
As to the lib dems been doomed, probably, but then so are the cons, so are labour, and who is going to vote for an independant? Doesn't matter anyway, little will change even when the governing party does. We seriously need to adopt the ancient Greek system of democracy, as until we do we don't actually have democracy here in the UK.
Ade
You vote for your local MP, NOT the party you want to govern the country. Take a long hard look at this and you will see that this contradicts itself. 1) It means that you have folks voting for a local MP they would never dream of, just to get the party they want to see in government get in, often buggering themselves up in the process. 2) If you DO vote for a local MP who is worth a damn, you could well find yourself helping to elect a party into power who you wouldn't vote for otherwise. That's just a stupid system.
You don't elect a leader, you vote for a party. Uhm, again, that's stupid. It means that you basically hand a bunch of tossers the power to decide who leads the country. You can argue all you like that the PM doesn't lead the country, that the party does, and I will argue that if you believe that you are clearly totally and utterly blind. The PM instructs his party on pretty much everything, and they WILL toe the line or get out. At best, you are electing electors, you're NOT chosing who will lead the country.
With the current system, your vote doesn't even matter. My evidence supporting this? The last general election, in the ward we were living in at the time, one of the candidates died a couple of weeks before the election. They cancelled ours until AFTER the results were in. If that isn't proof positive that your vote doesn't matter, what is?
This last general election, 1000s were turned away from polling stations, it was a huge joke, again proving that your vote doesn't matter.
The LibDems got the majority of votes, yet let's cut through the crap, tell it how it is, we have a CONSERVATIVE government. The policies I see etc are conservative ones, not LibDem. The country didn't even get the party they voted for, they got a Conservative PM, despite the majority voting LibDem. The party they voted for, well he's only the DEPUTY PM, he's not even the PM. How the F did that happen? What dick decided to give the UNELECTED Conservatives the PM position, and yes the power? That's right, the LibDems, NOT the people who voted. So why the F did ANYBODY bother to vote ffs?
I have yet to see a political party in the UK get it right, every single election we end up with more jackasses buggering things up still more. Why? Because we have a dumb assed combination of first past the post elections with this stupid assed cabinet+PM system. This is NOT democracy. If we lived in a democracy we would have 2 elections. 1 for your local senator type person, 1 for the man/woman leading the senate as a chairperson, with the senate actually voting on the decisions, not some poxy leader who passes down instructions, or bull shit party policies.
As things stand, to quote Orwell, whoever you vote for, the government gets in. There's little to chose between them, and most of the time your vote wont even count anyway unless you live in one of those seats that actually matter...
As to the lib dems been doomed, probably, but then so are the cons, so are labour, and who is going to vote for an independant? Doesn't matter anyway, little will change even when the governing party does. We seriously need to adopt the ancient Greek system of democracy, as until we do we don't actually have democracy here in the UK.
Ade
tek-monkey
wanna see my snake?
Ah, but the country decided we like being shafted. We had our chance at a (slightly) fairer system, and the electorate decided against it. That will be used as proof for years to come that our current system is what people want, we wont get another chance in our lifetimes I suspect.
I'm just waiting to see who gets shafted in the boundary shifts.
I'm just waiting to see who gets shafted in the boundary shifts.
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
Shafted shiftstek-monkey said:
1974
The good ole days
dangerousdave
Well-Known Forumite
let's face it, the problem we have is that all of the parties are only going to say what gets them elected, not what the country actually needs. why did we need to invest so heavily in the replacement nucleur deterrent at a time when the countries economy is in such a sorry state of affairs? why are we letting bankers get away with shafting us due to poor regulation? why do we insist on keeping such strong ties with america when their previous leader was only elected after an undemocratic vote? why is so much emphasis placed on the pay of people at the BBC, when they've at least had a pay freeze, unlike our politicians? why do we allow so many people to live a life on benefits, not contributing anything to society? why can we not deport people back to their country of origina if they're convicted of a serious crime?
ask any politician any number of these questions, and all you ever seem to get is a load of guff. the lib dems did used to stand for something, but as soon as they had a chance to actually do something they actually bottled it. to be fair to cable he seems to keep on being set up by the tories, as he seems to be the only lib dem in office who still has a backbone
ask any politician any number of these questions, and all you ever seem to get is a load of guff. the lib dems did used to stand for something, but as soon as they had a chance to actually do something they actually bottled it. to be fair to cable he seems to keep on being set up by the tories, as he seems to be the only lib dem in office who still has a backbone
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
these are CAPITAL ideas
Wolfenrook
Well-Known Forumite
Thank you for posting them Withnail, I could have SWORN that the news on the night announced that the LibDems had more seats than the Conservatives, and that was why they invited the Cons into an coallition. It would appear however I am mistaken and it was the other way around, which raises the question, WHAT F'ing morons voted for the frickin conservatives? The stupidity of some people beggars belief... The tories have historically proven time and again that they are only out for themselves, and tend to leave a bigger mess than the one they walk into to begin with... I am more willing to forgive the LibDems given that they are the minority in the coalition.Withnail said:
I stand by the rest of my comments however, and would really question why you belief that Stafford actually matters? It would appear it's always swung between Labour and Conservative, and neither have ever made much of a difference over the other. Like I said before, whoever you vote for you get the government. Our current system is failing the country, end of. When this changes, I will start voting again. I didn't vote in the last one, and like I said there was no point voting in the one before as it was cancelled until AFTER it was all done and dusted. The last time I voted I was living in London, I voted Labour and that was the year Labour took over from the Conservatives. lol Nowadays NONE of the parties are people I would elect to govern the country.
For the record, I'm neither a socialist or an anarchist. I believe in government by senate however, the one true democracy when done PROPERLY.
Oh and JM, did you mean CAPITOL? lol
Ade
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
Stafford ‘matters’ only inasmuch as it is a marginal seat - swinging from branch to branch - so can affect (along with a few other constituencies) the eventual electoral outcome. Whether this ‘matters’ in any meaningful sense of the word depends entirely on how cynical you are, but it sure beats living in a 'safe' seat (case in point).Wolfenrook said:
Actually the system is even worse when you look at how the share of votes translates to seats in the house;
Vote share Seats
CON 36.1% 307
LAB 29.0% 258
LD 23.0% 57
- the 7% difference in s.o.v. between Con and Lab leads to a difference of just 50 seats, whereas the 6% difference between Lab and LD leads to a difference of 200 seats.
I don't dispute that our voting system is cack.
Wolfenrook
Well-Known Forumite
Didn't think you were Withnail, I get the feeling you are as sick of it as I am. You were just correcting my misinformation based on faulty memories, I am happy to admit when I get things wrong. lol
I see your point about it been better than a so called safe seat, I never used to be nearly so cynical until the last 2 elections made me this way by driving home the point that our votes don't actually matter anyway 80% of the time. Lots of folks argued this with me after the election before last, stating that it was only fair to give all parties time to field a new representative (me, I think it was very unfair, to the voters, and they should have been forced to make an emergency substitution) whilst I argued that it just demonstrated how 1 seat doesn't make any difference whatsoever, especially when you so rightly pointed out how it is so easy for a party to get more seats purely by playing the boundry game. A lot of them came around to my view point after the fiasco that was the last election, with many of them queueing for hours and hours to vote, only to be turned away when the closed the polling station, despite the fact they had arrived in plenty of time.
I WANT to feel that voting gives me a voice, I WANT it to be true that every vote matters, but this system it's just not true. As your bit about vote share Vs seats proves, our system is NOT democratic at all, and I am still bitter over Tony Blair bringing that thing in where he could order his cabinet to agree with him.
I was once wide eyed and bushy tailed, and 'did my duty' as a voter, and thought it really mattered, especially when Labour actually got in that time. Since then I've just come to realise our system is like playing craps with loaded dice, and that the 3 main parties are all 95% the same and that the 5% difference is not enough to matter.
I hate been so cynical.
Ade
PS. I know where I got confused now, it was because the LibDems were the ones who had the choice of who to get into bed with, thus giving them THE majority and the lead of the coalition. On the plus side, it's proven once and for all to my mum that coalition governments don't work. lol
I see your point about it been better than a so called safe seat, I never used to be nearly so cynical until the last 2 elections made me this way by driving home the point that our votes don't actually matter anyway 80% of the time. Lots of folks argued this with me after the election before last, stating that it was only fair to give all parties time to field a new representative (me, I think it was very unfair, to the voters, and they should have been forced to make an emergency substitution) whilst I argued that it just demonstrated how 1 seat doesn't make any difference whatsoever, especially when you so rightly pointed out how it is so easy for a party to get more seats purely by playing the boundry game. A lot of them came around to my view point after the fiasco that was the last election, with many of them queueing for hours and hours to vote, only to be turned away when the closed the polling station, despite the fact they had arrived in plenty of time.
I WANT to feel that voting gives me a voice, I WANT it to be true that every vote matters, but this system it's just not true. As your bit about vote share Vs seats proves, our system is NOT democratic at all, and I am still bitter over Tony Blair bringing that thing in where he could order his cabinet to agree with him.
I was once wide eyed and bushy tailed, and 'did my duty' as a voter, and thought it really mattered, especially when Labour actually got in that time. Since then I've just come to realise our system is like playing craps with loaded dice, and that the 3 main parties are all 95% the same and that the 5% difference is not enough to matter.
I hate been so cynical.
Ade
PS. I know where I got confused now, it was because the LibDems were the ones who had the choice of who to get into bed with, thus giving them THE majority and the lead of the coalition. On the plus side, it's proven once and for all to my mum that coalition governments don't work. lol
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
a) It is my personal belief that everyone should still vote, regardless of how pointless it appears - you just should, end of 
b) Oranges are not the only fruit
c) I think it's fair to say that the LibDems are doomed
Perhaps a Republican/Democrat style two party system will emerge in the aftermath?
b) Oranges are not the only fruit
c) I think it's fair to say that the LibDems are doomed
Perhaps a Republican/Democrat style two party system will emerge in the aftermath?
John Marwood
I ♥ cryptic crosswords
OCDWithnail said:a) It is my personal belief that everyone should still vote, regardless of how pointless it appears - you just should, end of
b) Oranges are not the only fruit
c) I think it's fair to say that the LibDems are doomed
Perhaps a Republican/Democrat style two party system will emerge in the aftermath?
The Obese Communist Democrats
You know it makes sense
Withnail
Well-Known Forumite
And now the Lord's reform is to be abandoned - to the surprise of no one;
Or something like that?
Unaware as i, and i think everyone, was as to the existence of a 'coalition contract' worthy of the name, could this be not perhaps the end, nor the beginning of the end, but possibly the end of the beginning?
Or something like that?