7 ms·

I think it should also be noted that listed parties are known for jumping the band wagons...

by elcct 10y ago

nannal 10y ago
Because very very few people vote for them, we have a defacto two party system in that voting for any other party feels worthless. ~2010 due to a number of factors a third party (the lib dems) gained a significant increase in votes on campaign promises centred around free university courses for UK citizens. As no party had a majority, a coalition was formed between the conservative party & the liberal democrats. The Lib Dems went back on every single thing they had promised and essentially forced a new generation of voters to either pick conservative of labour.
- s0l1dsnak3123 10y ago
  This only applies to the UK election system, not the Scottish election system. Also the libdems actually did manage to achieve quite a few of their campaign pledges: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of-the-liberal-democrats-2010-election-manifesto-was-implemented https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of...
- Super_Jambo 10y ago
  The fact that the legislation OP is talking about passed in the majority cons government and not under the Con/Lib coalition suggests that the Lib Dems did not: "Go back on every single thing they had promised." What they did is go back on tuition fees which the press then merrily highlighted at every opportunity. Meanwhile New Labour & now the Cons are free to break promises every day of the week with barely a whisper from their mates in the press.
- lumisota 10y ago
  The "defacto two party system" results from the first-past-the-post voting system, not the number of voters who cast their ballot for other parties. Other parties got around 30% of the vote at the last General Election, but won only 13% of seats. (It is also worth noting that the Liberal Democrats did not gain a "significant increase in votes" in 2010 (23%) vs. 2005 (22%), and that they won fewer seats in 2010 than in 2005.).
  - xorxornop 10y ago
    Yes. Public perception and understanding of voting systems is consistently and distressingly abysmal. FPTP is an awful system that promotes ideologues and those that manufacture, manipulate and profit from them.
Latty 10y ago
Not really - opposing this is natural for the liberal democrats who have consistently been the biggest party consistently pushing for the right to personal privacy. Everyone trashes them for supposedly just bandwagoning on student loans and not backing it up, but they were the junior partner in a coalition - right now we are seeing the proof that their involvement held the conservative government back from a huge range of terrible policy, which they are now pushing through given their full government. It's a travesty the Lib Dems got slaughtered, right after proving their value.
- pmyteh 10y ago
  Firstly, they didn't have to go for the coalition. They did it for the electoral system referendum, which proposed a mediocre system and lost. Given that a serious chunk of their vote is expressly anti-Tory, the coalition was always electorally risky. Secondly, their popularity was built in large measure on their reputation for honesty - for not being the same two-faced shits as other politicians. Signing an ironclad pledge on tuition fees before the election and then reneging didn't just piss off students and their parents, it cannibalised their own political brand.
  - Latty 10y ago
    They didn't, but by doing so they ensured much better policies for that period. It's clear based on what the government is doing now that the liberal democrats firmly kept them in check and gave us a few years of much better governance. As to the second part, this often stated thing about the pledge on tuition fees - they were the junior partner in a coalition - expecting them to somehow be able to uphold all their policies in that situation is insane. They took the sane route and compromised to make sure that the situation was better, apparently people will only accept zealous idealism and pragmatism is wrong. They held a louder voice in the role they had, and used it to ensure better policies from the government in that period. They made the best play, results-wise. That apparently doesn't matter to the voting public.
    - dreamfactory2 10y ago

I think it should also be noted that listed parties are known for jumping the band wagons...

by elcct 10y ago

I think it should also be noted that listed parties are known for jumping the band wagons...

Because very very few people vote for them, we have a defacto two party system in that voting for any other party feels worthless. ~2010 due to a number of factors a third party (the lib dems) gained a significant increase in votes on campaign promises centred around free university courses for UK citizens. As no party had a majority, a coalition was formed between the conservative party & the liberal democrats. The Lib Dems went back on every single thing they had promised and essentially forced a new generation of voters to either pick conservative of labour.

s0l1dsnak3123 10y ago
This only applies to the UK election system, not the Scottish election system. Also the libdems actually did manage to achieve quite a few of their campaign pledges: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of-the-liberal-democrats-2010-election-manifesto-was-implemented https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/apr/15/how-much-of...
Super_Jambo 10y ago
The fact that the legislation OP is talking about passed in the majority cons government and not under the Con/Lib coalition suggests that the Lib Dems did not: "Go back on every single thing they had promised." What they did is go back on tuition fees which the press then merrily highlighted at every opportunity. Meanwhile New Labour & now the Cons are free to break promises every day of the week with barely a whisper from their mates in the press.
lumisota 10y ago
The "defacto two party system" results from the first-past-the-post voting system, not the number of voters who cast their ballot for other parties. Other parties got around 30% of the vote at the last General Election, but won only 13% of seats. (It is also worth noting that the Liberal Democrats did not gain a "significant increase in votes" in 2010 (23%) vs. 2005 (22%), and that they won fewer seats in 2010 than in 2005.).
- xorxornop 10y ago
  Yes. Public perception and understanding of voting systems is consistently and distressingly abysmal. FPTP is an awful system that promotes ideologues and those that manufacture, manipulate and profit from them.

Latty 10y ago

Not really - opposing this is natural for the liberal democrats who have consistently been the biggest party consistently pushing for the right to personal privacy. Everyone trashes them for supposedly just bandwagoning on student loans and not backing it up, but they were the junior partner in a coalition - right now we are seeing the proof that their involvement held the conservative government back from a huge range of terrible policy, which they are now pushing through given their full government. It's a travesty the Lib Dems got slaughtered, right after proving their value.

pmyteh 10y ago
Firstly, they didn't have to go for the coalition. They did it for the electoral system referendum, which proposed a mediocre system and lost. Given that a serious chunk of their vote is expressly anti-Tory, the coalition was always electorally risky. Secondly, their popularity was built in large measure on their reputation for honesty - for not being the same two-faced shits as other politicians. Signing an ironclad pledge on tuition fees before the election and then reneging didn't just piss off students and their parents, it cannibalised their own political brand.
- Latty 10y ago
  They didn't, but by doing so they ensured much better policies for that period. It's clear based on what the government is doing now that the liberal democrats firmly kept them in check and gave us a few years of much better governance. As to the second part, this often stated thing about the pledge on tuition fees - they were the junior partner in a coalition - expecting them to somehow be able to uphold all their policies in that situation is insane. They took the sane route and compromised to make sure that the situation was better, apparently people will only accept zealous idealism and pragmatism is wrong. They held a louder voice in the role they had, and used it to ensure better policies from the government in that period. They made the best play, results-wise. That apparently doesn't matter to the voting public.
  - dreamfactory2 10y ago