Lib Dems - the party we can trust???

[Beef Oven!]

It gets worse

[ahinton]

It gets worse

"the paty"?

Once that's put right, though, which party could you trust? - and to what extent are individuals within each of them damaging theirs?

[Beef Oven!]

"the paty"?

Once that's put right, though, which party could you trust? - and to what extent are individuals within each of them damaging theirs?

I know you like talking about UKIP, but let's stay on-topic.

[ahinton]

I know you like talking about UKIP

The you appear to know something that I don't although, in principle (as distinct from in the present context), there's nothing especially surprising in that.

but let's stay on-topic.

I would have thought - perhaps incorrectly - that the very presence of the question mark in the topic might be seen as implying a widening of its agenda for the purpose of putting the questionability of the LibDems' trustworthiness to the question of the extent or otherwise to which any other British party may reasonably be trusted.

It seems to me that none of them - including the one that you mistakenly claim that I like to talk about - has an especially clean record on that front, although it might well be argued that the LibDems have sought with rather more diligence than most to market themselves as a party notable for its trustworthiness and, on that basis, it could be perceived as having farther to fall.

[amateur51]

I know you like talking about UKIP, but let's stay on-topic.

I don't think you can trust any of them, sadly. It's the LibDems' turn at the moment.

Most people, myself included, don't know enough about UKIP to make this judgement because it seems to be N. Farage Esq + sundry other bampots with nary a policy between them. How they deal with Mr Silvester's views may tell us more.

However I do suggest that Oxo's leaping onto this bandwagon is part of a handy distraction from focussing on UKIP's Silvester problem.

[ahinton]

I don't think you can trust any of them, sadly. It's the LibDems' turn at the moment.

Most people, myself included, don't know enough about UKIP to make this judgement because it seems to be N. Farage Esq + sundry other bampots with nary a policy between them. How they deal with Mr Silvester's views may tell us more.

However I do suggest that Oxo's leaping onto this bandwagon is part of a handy distraction from focussing on UKIP's Silvester problem.

Only if anyone lets it be so; you do apparently need to be somewhat wary of mentioning UKIP here in case our resident M Lerosbif concludes that you like talking about it but, that aside, its Silvestrine problems are clearly not its only ones at present, as M. Farage has already let it be known.

The overriding problem, as I and others have already noted, is that all parties have issues of trustworthiness of one kind and another, so UKIP and the LibDems are far from alone in this. The question of whether, how often and to what extent some of those problems are a direct consequence of the alleged or actual misconduct or questionable conduct of individual members, be they lords, MPs, councillors or whatever else, is of some relevance here, especially in the light of recent news, but it's not all down to that kind of thing. One of the most serious outcome of these problems is the disinterest that they foster in younger members of the electorate and it will be interesting to see how the poll statistics of next General Election might uphold and illustrate this.

[Beef Oven!]

The you appear to know something that I don't although, in principle (as distinct from in the present context), there's nothing especially surprising in that.


I would have thought - perhaps incorrectly - that the very presence of the question mark in the topic might be seen as implying a widening of its agenda for the purpose of putting the questionability of the LibDems' trustworthiness to the question of the extent or otherwise to which any other British party may reasonably be trusted.

It seems to me that none of them - including the one that you mistakenly claim that I like to talk about - has an especially clean record on that front, although it might well be argued that the LibDems have sought with rather more diligence than most to market themselves as a party notable for its trustworthiness and, on that basis, it could be perceived as having farther to fall.

Well, question marks aside, I was really thinking about the LibDems. But, if I'm mistaken about you wanting to talk about UKIP, then fair enough. I don't mind talking about UKIP if you want - any publicity is good publicity (within reason, of course, but so far all the attention is good for UKIP). I tend not to talk about UKIP, there's no need - everybody else does it for me!

[amateur51]

Well, question marks aside, I was really thinking about the LibDems. But, if I'm mistaken about you wanting to talk about UKIP, then fair enough. I don't mind talking about UKIP if you want - any publicity is good publicity (within reason, of course, but so far all the attention is good for UKIP). I tend not to talk about UKIP, there's no need - everybody else does it for me!

Game set & match to Oxo!

I suggest that this thread should be abandoned or for preference merged with the one named 'Lord Rennard'

[Beef Oven!]

UPDATE: Hancock's son has been arrested. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-25861012

Hampshire police said "a reporter received an injury to his nose".

[french frank]

It was always the wisdom that Tory scandals were usually about sex, Labour's about money. Currently the LibDems are in coalition with the Tories ... wait until they form a coalition with Labour.

But there are rotten apples everywhere, not just in political parties.

[ahinton]

It was always the wisdom that Tory scandals were usually about sex, Labour's about money. Currently the LibDems are in coalition with the Tories ... wait until they form a coalition with Labour.

Oh, I can wait - and hopefully wait! - but it's your "was" that's vital here; Tory scandals are no longer "usually about sex" any more than Labour's are "about money".

Imagine a situation (albeit admittedly a less than likely, though not impossible, one) in which a hung parliamentary situation following the next General Election was such that not even any two-party coalition could stand a good chance of surviving - what then? I realise that such a scenario, were it to come about, would not arise solely as a consequence of the kinds of alleged and actual wrongdoings that reduce levels of public trust in any political party, but it would nevertheless become an unwitting symptom of that distrust, howsoever caused.

The MPs expenses débâcle was perhaps the single most significant event to focus public attention on the extent to which any party could be trusted, but by now it has morphed into a mere illustration rather than a kind of be-all and end-all of that. If public distrust of the alleged integrity and general conduct of political parties as a whole and of their representatives at all levels - lords, MPs, MEPs, councillors et al - continues to wane, the likelihood of majority government or even effective two-party coalition will almost certainly wane with it; if UKIP - sorry, the party that cannot be named - does succeed in gaining seats at the next General Election, this will serve only to muddy the waters of possible government even more than would otherwise be the case.

The extent to which the LibDems are perceived to be trustworthy will nevertheless remain a factor of no small significance, to the extent that, for the foreseeable future, no coalition government would be conceivable without them as the balancing factor; as someone said to me recently, the LibDems are slowly but surely turning themselves into the bicycle that less and less people want to ride.

But there are rotten apples everywhere, not just in political parties.

Whilst that is of course true, the more unstable and untrustworthy the government of the day, the more that those apples are likely to rot in greater numbers and in more orchards.

[Serial_Apologist]

The whole capitalist system rests upon mistrust, and on competing individuals getting one over on one-another. Past solutions as to the trustworthiness of those elected to be in charge have floundered on the assumption of those leading the changes of entitlement to a slice of what the privileged older orders afforded for themselves, and expectations that this might turn out to be the case leading to direct as opposed to representive forms of democracy based on mandation, thereby overlooking issues of flexibility in the face of the unexpected and on-job learning curves.

While I don't forsee much improvement in the present system - which is and always has been as much dependent on old-boy networks as rights assumed by the rich and powerful on the false basis of equating leadership qualities with the values needed to compete successfully, and will in the end survive by force if necessary - any alternative way forward will need to be built on other than materialism, in the colloquial sense of the term. And that's a tall order.

[ahinton]

The whole capitalist system rests upon mistrust, and on competing individuals getting one over on one-another. Past solutions as to the trustworthiness of those elected to be in charge have floundered on the assumption of those leading the changes of entitlement to a slice of what the privileged older orders afforded for themselves, and expectations that this might turn out to be the case leading to direct as opposed to representive forms of democracy based on mandation, thereby overlooking issues of flexibility in the face of the unexpected and on-job learning curves.

While I don't forsee much improvement in the present system - which is and always has been as much dependent on old-boy networks as rights assumed by the rich and powerful on the false basis of equating leadership qualities with the values needed to compete successfully, and will in the end survive by force if necessary - any alternative way forward will need to be built on other than materialism, in the colloquial sense of the term. And that's a tall order.

Interesting points, to be sure, but I remain to be convinced that this is the whole story in the sense that (a) the problems various within British political parties today are pretty much across the board and (b) a substantial proportion of both the apathetic and the disgruntled voters whose distrust in them all is on the increase broadly support that system themselves; not only that, I am also unconvinced that the kind of thing that we're considering here would be any better or less prevalent if we had a different system - part of the reason for this is that, for far too many people, political office means power and privilege which can lead to misuse and abuse of both, irrespective of the system that's in place at any given time.

[MrGongGong]

It was always the wisdom that Tory scandals were usually about sex, Labour's about money. Currently the LibDems are in coalition with the Tories ... wait until they form a coalition with Labour.
.

and the Kippers scandals are all about the dancing blue elephants that are controlling our minds with Flemish telekenisis !

Deluded ? Moi ? surely not

The moment you trust ANY of them you are in trouble.
Scissor monitor ?

[Serial_Apologist]

Interesting points, to be sure, but I remain to be convinced that this is the whole story in the sense that (a) the problems various within British political parties today are pretty much across the board and (b) a substantial proportion of both the apathetic and the disgruntled voters whose distrust in them all is on the increase broadly support that system themselves;

Mismatch alert there I think, Alister! One of the things that has to be pointed out is that the very system the voting population supports is the same as the one which politicians have no control over - hence the promises that can't be kept, the short-term thinking governed as much by accounting cycles as election cycles, and the exploiting to the max of positions gained in the political pecking order.

not only that, I am also unconvinced that the kind of thing that we're considering here would be any better or less prevalent if we had a different system - part of the reason for this is that, for far too many people, political office means power and privilege which can lead to misuse and abuse of both, irrespective of the system that's in place at any given time.

Well it wouldn't be irrespective of a different system which accorded rewards other than privilege and pecuniousness - that's what I'm saying! The kind of spirit I am speaking of whould be that of the people who have written on here that they would be prepared to take on the running of Radio 3 out of love and wider responsibility than the personal, at a fraction of the salaries of those presently in charge. Earnings would in turn be spent on durable useful products rather than trash made not to last but rather for boulstering status in the great superiority/inferiority stakes illusion that keeps the machine ticking along on its power and privilege-perpetuating way.