Sunday, 14 March 2010

Why the People are Kingmakers not the Lib Dems

I'm sorry Iain and Tom it's not as easy as Iain makes out. Indeed Tom's argument "let the little people have their vote*, then ignore what they say and start bartering away the very policies they voted for behind closed doors and without reference to them." seems to apply to some of the policies that over 60% who expressed a preference against in 2005 saw happen under first past the post.

What Nick has laid out are four principles that will shine through no matter what decisions Liberal Democrats have to make after an election (even if that is in choosing a minority partner to see them through). So Iain or Tom either of your parties can make it clear right here right now.
  • Is your party committed to a fairer tax system lifting the poorest out and make the wealthiest pay their fair share by shutting some of the loopholes you've both created.
  • Is your party committed to investing in education and provision of skills to lift us out of the recession and get some of those out of work back in productive employment.
  • Are you committed to a green, sustainable economy to lift us out of this recession.
  • Is your committed to real political change to sort out the political mess we now find ourselves in.
Neither of you seem keen on the first, are non-committal on the second, need work on the third and are refusing to take tough choices on the fourth.

One of your parties talks change yet seems to not know the meaning of the work. The other promises future fairness while ignoring that means a failure to deliver over the past 13 years. All of the above are examples of change and fairness on the way forward. Things that the people are saying they want, you know away from the Westminster bubble, on the streets, on the buses, in the shops.

The Liberal Democrats principles are clear, the people will know just what we stand for. Whereas both you parties seem to be confused on just what you stand for.

Tom what we are waiting for is for those people to have their say first, see what mandate they give, they are the kingmakers not us. Sorry Tom unlike Labour we do not take anybody's vote for granted, that has been the problem with both Labour and the Conservatives for too long. That gentlemen is the difference, why it isn't straight forward to give an answer you want us to say. Although even you own party leaders are now being asked that question I notice, and guess what? They aren't giving as straight an answer as Mr Dale.

* How derogatory of an MP to call the electorate 'little' people.


  1. I hope no other parties will support proportional representation. I want my MP to represent the people who live in my town, not a political party. The proportional representation system benefits political parties more than independent politicians and the general public. The Alternative vote system is fairer.

  2. STV does not take away the representation of the people in an area. Where you have AV+ like we do for Scottish elections it can.

    Also AV is not fairer that STV. It doesn't reflect the votes cast.

    Also under STV you do not have to vote for all the party aproved candidates, if there is one you do not agree with you do not have to vote for them. With AV you are given only one choice per party as a voter, you have no say over the candidate that wins that selection.