"The general tendancy to write them off as 'too wishy-washy' flies blatantly in the face of the policies put forward by the party: radical ideas that are too risky to be put forward by either of the main parties"
I think it's true that the Lib Dems are written off by most people. They are yet another centric party and who needs them when there are much larger well established parties offering similar policies. What may appear radical is the result of an attempt to distinguish themselves from from the main parties. It is because of this "radicalism" that they appear so wishy washy: they are constantly changing their ideas (when their old ones don't win votes) and meandering around the political spectrum. At best this could be described as progressive and evolutionary and at worst it demonstraigts a lack of any cohesive ideology. IMHO Lib Dems only win seats because they are seen (by a large percentage of their voters) as a third way by people who are discontent with Labour and are repulsed by the idea of voting Tory. A last resourt rather than a show of support.
And I do think CK is holding them back: he's a fat bastard with yellow hair and a monotone voice up against the fresh faced bright young things from the other side.
Later
Andrew
06 Jan 2006, 12:33
Tim
I'm not too sure about Kennedy, but I did get pushed off a bollard last night.
06 Jan 2006, 12:52
Dan
The power of Christ compels you!
The power of Christ compels you!
Anyway, I agree with the above comment re: centrism. As was pointed out in the Guardian today, I think the Lib Dems' problem has been that a large proportion of their potential seats have been in what are traditionally Tory strongholds, hence requiring them to present more Tory-friendly, less radical policies in these areas. Obviously such strong regional discrepancies lead to 'wishy washy' jibes etc. And of the course the largely right-wing coup we're now seeing is a clear sign that you should never give an inch to these people in case they spike your orange juice with whisky and then plot your downfall while you're off presenting HIGNFY. Which is why I pushed Tim off the bollard.
So yes, more idealists required. What's the worst that could happen? (Don't answer that).
06 Jan 2006, 18:29
Tim
Dan, you geek. How the hell do you get photos to appear on here?
And also, does anyone else think that Kennedy got the lighting a bit wrong for his press conference? He looked like Fagin.
06 Jan 2006, 18:55
Dan
I looked at the 'special markup' section referred to below each and every 'add a comment' box. I can see how this procedure would have stumped you.
06 Jan 2006, 19:05
Tim
I was stumped by the 'what colour is an orange?' question.
06 Jan 2006, 20:53
Add a comment
You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.
6 comments by 0 or more people
Andrew Smith
Cool Blog Richard, hope you keep it going.
"The general tendancy to write them off as 'too wishy-washy' flies blatantly in the face of the policies put forward by the party: radical ideas that are too risky to be put forward by either of the main parties"
I think it's true that the Lib Dems are written off by most people. They are yet another centric party and who needs them when there are much larger well established parties offering similar policies. What may appear radical is the result of an attempt to distinguish themselves from from the main parties. It is because of this "radicalism" that they appear so wishy washy: they are constantly changing their ideas (when their old ones don't win votes) and meandering around the political spectrum. At best this could be described as progressive and evolutionary and at worst it demonstraigts a lack of any cohesive ideology.
IMHO Lib Dems only win seats because they are seen (by a large percentage of their voters) as a third way by people who are discontent with Labour and are repulsed by the idea of voting Tory. A last resourt rather than a show of support.
And I do think CK is holding them back: he's a fat bastard with yellow hair and a monotone voice up against the fresh faced bright young things from the other side.
Later
Andrew
06 Jan 2006, 12:33
Tim
I'm not too sure about Kennedy, but I did get pushed off a bollard last night.
06 Jan 2006, 12:52
Dan
The power of Christ compels you!
The power of Christ compels you!
Anyway, I agree with the above comment re: centrism. As was pointed out in the Guardian today, I think the Lib Dems' problem has been that a large proportion of their potential seats have been in what are traditionally Tory strongholds, hence requiring them to present more Tory-friendly, less radical policies in these areas. Obviously such strong regional discrepancies lead to 'wishy washy' jibes etc. And of the course the largely right-wing coup we're now seeing is a clear sign that you should never give an inch to these people in case they spike your orange juice with whisky and then plot your downfall while you're off presenting HIGNFY. Which is why I pushed Tim off the bollard.
So yes, more idealists required. What's the worst that could happen? (Don't answer that).
06 Jan 2006, 18:29
Tim
Dan, you geek. How the hell do you get photos to appear on here?
And also, does anyone else think that Kennedy got the lighting a bit wrong for his press conference? He looked like Fagin.
06 Jan 2006, 18:55
Dan
I looked at the 'special markup' section referred to below each and every 'add a comment' box. I can see how this procedure would have stumped you.
06 Jan 2006, 19:05
Tim
I was stumped by the 'what colour is an orange?' question.
06 Jan 2006, 20:53