Lib Dems - the party we can trust???

[amateur51]

You mean they might stop pretending that they 'represent' their constituents ? Blimey that's far too radical for any of them :-(

Let's put it to a referendum then ;p

[french frank]

You mean they might stop pretending that they 'represent' their constituents ? Blimey that's far too radical for any of them :-(

How can they 'represent' all their constituents when their constituents want many different - and mutually exclusive - things?

The job of MPs, vis-à-vis individual constituents, is to advise them and help them on personal issues where government ministries or public bodies are involved. It isn't to do their bidding on every policy topic. You (pl and collectively) have elected them to get on with the job according to their best judgement. If you don't like the way they do it, you kick them out, recognise you made a mistake and try again with someone else ...

Ideally, you should recognise that not all desirable outcomes can necessarily be achieved. Politics isn't an exact science and as Machiavelli said, as soon as people elect a leader they find he (or she, these days) won't do what they want. Then the people want to change to a different leader.

[jean]

...then the politicians could say, "Tell us what you would like us to do - and we'll promise to do it."

Didn't the Social Democrats try that?

[aeolium]

The job of MPs, vis-à-vis individual constituents, is to advise them and help them on personal issues where government ministries or public bodies are involved. It isn't to do their bidding on every policy topic. You (pl and collectively) have elected them to get on with the job according to their best judgement. If you don't like the way they do it, you kick them out, recognise you made a mistake and try again with someone else ...

The problem with that is that if the main centrist parties are largely indistinguishable it can seem like a pointless activity to many voters, and this is one reason why there has been a steady decline in the support for the main parties (in the UK) since the high points of the 1950s. And in Europe this disillusionment has been accompanied by a rise in support for extremist parties, many of which (as with the extreme parties of the 1920s and 1930s) offer a more state-interventionist ideology than the "let the market provide all the answers" laissez-fairism of the centrist parties. The Crash of 2008 has demonstrated the failure of the consensus monetarist model of the centrist parties, yet they have found no alternative economic philosophy to replace it.

And quoting one unemployment statistical comparison doesn't remotely tell the full story. It does not take into account the amount of part-time work, the number of unpaid interns, the fact that wages for most people have been declining in real terms for several years now (apart from for executives who have enjoyed double-digit increases), the fact that a rising number of working households depend on benefits - and in some cases food banks - to supplement their low wages. And in purely statistical terms, this chart showing the rate from 1992* to today shows a wider picture, one in which unemployment was higher for much of the period of the 1992-1997 Tory government than it was at the end of Labour's rule in 2010 even after the worst economic crash for 80 years, and until that crash unemployment had been under 6% for much of Labour's time in charge. Of course for some Tories and perhaps Liberal Democrats, the crash and subsequent huge rise in the national debt was entirely Labour's fault and not the result of a flawed economic philosophy, one to which they also subscribed.

*I see that the chart start year defaults to 2011 so you need to change the start year to 1992 to see that picture

[french frank]

Didn't the Social Democrats try that?

Did they (we!) introduce that on a national level? I know that LibDem (and possibly other) councils have had local referendums on specific issues: would you prefer money to be spent on X or Y? But many voters considered that a cop-out: councillors had been elected to run councils, and they should take the decisions (as long as they made the 'right' ones!) and shoulder the responsibility. [That was before there were elected mayors :-(]

Most big councils are now run with cabinets, scrutiny committees (both with elected councillors) and dedicated council officers. Do people prefer the decisions to be left to the whim [sic] of electors who might vote one way on Thursday and differently on Friday, depending on what relevant information they've been given?

[french frank]

The problem with that is that if the main centrist parties are largely indistinguishable it can seem like a pointless activity to many voters, and this is one reason why there has been a steady decline in the support for the main parties (in the UK) since the high points of the 1950s. And in Europe this disillusionment has been accompanied by a rise in support for extremist parties, many of which (as with the extreme parties of the 1920s and 1930s) offer a more state-interventionist ideology than the "let the market provide all the answers" laissez-fairism of the centrist parties. The Crash of 2008 has demonstrated the failure of the consensus monetarist model of the centrist parties, yet they have found no alternative economic philosophy to replace it.

Well, I'm not quite sure which extremist parties you mean, whose support has risen in light of their economic interventionist ideology? Nor am I sure that it is possible to blame political parties for failing to come up with an alternative (other than by overthrowing capitalism) for which there seems to be little popular taste.

And quoting one unemployment statistical comparison doesn't remotely tell the full story. It does not take into account the amount of part-time work, the number of unpaid interns, the fact that wages for most people have been declining in real terms for several years now (apart from for executives who have enjoyed double-digit increases), the fact that a rising number of working households depend on benefits - and in some cases food banks - to supplement their low wages. And in purely statistical terms, this chart showing the rate from 1992* to today shows a wider picture, one in which unemployment was higher for much of the period of the 1992-1997 Tory government than it was at the end of Labour's rule in 2010 even after the worst economic crash for 80 years, and until that crash unemployment had been under 6% for much of Labour's time in charge. Of course for some Tories and perhaps Liberal Democrats, the crash and subsequent huge rise in the national debt was entirely Labour's fault and not the result of a flawed economic philosophy, one to which they also subscribed.

I'm well aware that quoting the current figures and the previous figures doesn't tell the 'full story'; and that, in general terms, Tories will tolerate higher unemployment more readily than Labour: but it does show that when people castigate the current coalition, the figures show that there has been no horrendous rise in unemployment. The coalition has had to cope with the recession too. Yes, many of the jobs may not be 'proper' full-time employment - but that was my point about the previous figures, in response to S_A: was that definitely not the case under Labour, or is there no data available?

[amateur51]

it does show that when people castigate the current coalition, the figures show that there has been no horrendous rise in unemployment. The coalition has had to cope with the recession too. Yes, many of the jobs may not be 'proper' full-time employment - but that was my point about the previous figures, in response to S_A: was that definitely not the case under Labour, or is there no data available?

I think the hundreds of thousands of local authority workers who have been made redundant might beg to differ with you. i have to travel several miles to get my library books changed now.

[amateur51]

Did they (we!) introduce that on a national level? I know that LibDem (and possibly other) councils have had local referendums on specific issues: would you prefer money to be spent on X or Y? But many voters considered that a cop-out: councillors had been elected to run councils, and they should take the decisions (as long as they made the 'right' ones!) and shoulder the responsibility. [That was before there were elected mayors :-(]

Most big councils are now run with cabinets, scrutiny committees (both with elected councillors) and dedicated council officers. Do people prefer the decisions to be left to the whim [sic] of electors who might vote one way on Thursday and differently on Friday, depending on what relevant information they've been given?

You unintentionally highlight the problem with the current 5-year Parliament system. Five years is a long time to put up with a duff MP/duff Government and it also saps local initiative. A recall system needs to be considered seriously.

[MrGongGong]

How can they 'represent' all their constituents when their constituents want many different - and mutually exclusive - things?

The job of MPs, vis-à-vis individual constituents, is to advise them and help them on personal issues where government ministries or public bodies are involved. It isn't to do their bidding on every policy topic. You (pl and collectively) have elected them to get on with the job according to their best judgement. If you don't like the way they do it, you kick them out, recognise you made a mistake and try again with someone else ...
.

How quaint
I don't expect anyone to do what I want (Turning radio 2 into Radio Ligeti for example)
SO why do we have this farce of supposed representation?
along with the farce of having policies for us to read before elections ?

Surely the problem is (again!) that they represent

1: Themselves
2: Their business mates (or union mates)
3: Their party
4: Their future employment prospects
5: Whether they are a footnote or a paragraph in the History book

If all we get to "choose" from is people with the same beliefs then it's no choice at all

"Spam Spam Spam Spam" ?

[ahinton]

You unintentionally highlight the problem with the current 5-year Parliament system. Five years is a long time to put up with a duff MP/duff Government and it also saps local initiative. A recall system needs to be considered seriously.

Some say that the five year term is too long and others that it is too short for plans that will by definition need far longer than that to go from initial implementation to completion (the much-vaunted and much derided HS2, for one of the more hideous examples); that said, so a government does not have to go the full five year term if there's sufficient impetus to call a General Election after less tha five yeas following the previous one, that term is not quite set in stone.

[aeolium]

Well, I'm not quite sure which extremist parties you mean, whose support has risen in light of their economic interventionist ideology? Nor am I sure that it is possible to blame political parties for failing to come up with an alternative (other than by overthrowing capitalism) for which there seems to be little popular taste.

It is indeed a mixed picture in Europe but I was thinking for instance of Marine Le Pen's National Front party in France, which was moved much more towards economic protectionism, anti-austerity and state involvement in key utilities and services, or the Dutch Freedom Party which voted down austerity measures proposed by the government in 2012. While all of these far-right parties are driven by hostility to immigration and the EU, there is also a general anti-globalisation rhetoric which plays to their predominant support principally among the poorer working class. There is a good Demos report on this which unfortunately I cannot link to as it currently causes my aging Mac to freeze (something to do with Acrobat problems on old OS X?)

But as to alternatives, surely there are better alternatives short of overthrowing capitalism? On the European level, Yannis Varoufakis' and Stuart Holland's Modest Proposal for resolving the crisis in the eurozone does not propose overthrowing capitalism, and in the UK here is an agenda which I would much rather vote for than those of any of the mainstream parties.

I'm well aware that quoting the current figures and the previous figures doesn't tell the 'full story'; and that, in general terms, Tories will tolerate higher unemployment more readily than Labour: but it does show that when people castigate the current coalition, the figures show that there has been no horrendous rise in unemployment. The coalition has had to cope with the recession too. Yes, many of the jobs may not be 'proper' full-time employment - but that was my point about the previous figures, in response to S_A: was that definitely not the case under Labour, or is there no data available?

But the recession is being experienced so unequally by different groups. Everywhere (except perhaps the BBC which already had its huge salary increases some years back) top executives and managers whether in the public or the private sector are paying themselves large increases while the salaries of others are pegged below inflation. And there is the general insecurity of much employment now, short-term contracts, zero-hours contracts, unpaid internships, nearly a million young people unemployed, as well as the resurgence of high levels of indebtedness. What it means is that the economic model is just not sustainable - too many people have too little disposable income to spend without getting into debt. And there is nothing to stop a repeat of the 2008 crash, or at least a lesser version of it.

[french frank]

How quaint
I don't expect anyone to do what I want (Turning radio 2 into Radio Ligeti for example)
SO why do we have this farce of supposed representation?

Define what you mean by 'representation'. Have you ever needed to visit your MP and ask for personal help and advice?

I suspect that your mind is just too open on this subject .... There can be absolutely no answer to anyone who is under the misapprehension that a manifesto is a promise or pledge that policies will be achieved - and, moreover, achieved within the period of the parliament for which electors are being asked to vote.

All you can do is form an opinion about the general philosophy of a party/candidate and vote for the one that most closely meets with your approval. Then go away and cultivate your garden. Respond to Avaaz petitions, fill in protest postcards for Friends of the Earth or the Free Tibet Campaign. And have your holidays, as usual, in Switzerland while speaking out vehemently for the poor.

Alternatively, think of something better than writing angry posts on obscure internet forums.

[MrGongGong]

Define what you mean by 'representation'. Have you ever needed to visit your MP and ask for personal help and advice?

I suspect that your mind is just too open on this subject .... There can be absolutely no answer to anyone who is under the misapprehension that a manifesto is a promise or pledge that policies will be achieved - and, moreover, achieved within the period of the parliament for which electors are being asked to vote.

All you can do is form an opinion about the general philosophy of a party/candidate and vote for the one that most closely meets with your approval. Then go away and cultivate your garden. Respond to Avaaz petitions, fill in protest postcards for Friends of the Earth or the Free Tibet Campaign. And have your holidays, as usual, in Switzerland while speaking out vehemently for the poor.

Alternatively, think of something better than writing angry posts on obscure internet forums.

I'm not angry
and i've never had a 'holiday' in Switzerland
just cant stand hypocrisy and people who promise something and do the opposite
that stinks even if it is 'realistic' it's unethical and wrong
which is why it's so sad that the Liberal party has come to this
and is why so many people are disillusioned with the whole sham business

The best option is (again) to spoil the ballot
or not bother at all

It's very simple and what most of us tell out children (in more polite terms)

"Don't tell fucking lies"

(my MP ha ha ha is slightly to the right of Goebbels and isn't going to help any of us, the previous one was a Blairite who didn't even bother to turn up on the day they voted to close our local post office. Our EU 'representative' doesn't even believe in the EU. A huge crock of shite, if you ask me!)

[teamsaint]

You should try it round here Gongers. The tory MPs seem to be recruited from the ranks of the wives of rich bankers via the very elite private school parents networks, and the Lib dems represntatives are mostly on parole at best.
Labour are even more useless than in the rest of the country, since outside of Southampton they don't exist.

The one shining exception to this awful state of affairs is one of the labour MPs, who is a fine chap, as he is a decent wicket keeper,and once took a catch at off my bowling.

[french frank]

(my MP ha ha ha is slightly to the right of Goebbels and isn't going to help any of us, the previous one was a Blairite who didn't even bother to turn up on the day they voted to close our local post office. Our EU 'representative' doesn't even believe in the EU. A huge crock of shite, if you ask me!)

Move to another constituency then; if your neighbours vote for a candidate who's slightly to the right of Goebbels you can't have much in common with them. My MP is from the valleys and went to a Glamorgan comprehensive school.