Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.

Ming Gone

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Story

:eek:

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't know why you're shocked. After all its not a big suprise. I think he probably did as well as anyone, but the Lib Dems are always going to be squeezed if the Tories and Labour are both electable. they only do well when one or the other isn't...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Not a real shock. Thought he might have hung on a bit longer though. Shame though, I saw him as an honest and genuine man- two qualities which are in such short supply in politics. But I never felt captivated enought to vote for him.

    Dont know whos going to take over as leader but they are going to have a tough job.

    :thumb:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    shame, i thought he had some good ideas...and would have voted for him
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Im surprised he lasted this long to be honest. It is one thing to be a good political figure when you dont have ot be visible or make any decisions for yourself but his whole leadership has pushed the Lib Dems from a party that could only gain support and become a real 3rd party to a lower level insignificant party in English Politics. He has essentially helped make us a 2 Party nation.

    He wasnt Merciless... but maybe he should have been. Good bye Ming!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Don't know why you're shocked. After all its not a big suprise. I think he probably did as well as anyone, but the Lib Dems are always going to be squeezed if the Tories and Labour are both electable. they only do well when one or the other isn't...

    Oh I never though tthat he would be there for anything like four/five years - only that he would see them through the next election.

    Still to go "without delay" says that there is something deep behind this.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bring back Charlie.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Still to go "without delay" says that there is something deep behind this.

    Desperation and panic I suspect...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bring back Charlie.

    Thjat'd probably be best, though I suspect he wouldn't touch the job again.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Bullseye wrote: »
    Im surprised he lasted this long to be honest. It is one thing to be a good political figure when you dont have ot be visible or make any decisions for yourself but his whole leadership has pushed the Lib Dems from a party that could only gain support and become a real 3rd party to a lower level insignificant party in English Politics. He has essentially helped make us a 2 Party nation.

    I don't agree with that at all. We've always been a two party nation. The only reason the Lib Dems have done well since Labour came to power was that the Tories were so shit, and they did a good job seizing on people who would normally vote Tory (old people in particular). That and their stance on the war really helped their polls, but now we're roughly back to day-to-day politics and the Conservatives aren't utterly shit any more, their popularity has gone down because it's the usual left vs. right (or centre vs. centre as it's now known).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't agree with that at all. We've always been a two party nation. The only reason the Lib Dems have done well since Labour came to power was that the Tories were so shit, and they did a good job seizing on people who would normally vote Tory (old people in particular). That and their stance on the war really helped their polls, but now we're roughly back to day-to-day politics and the Conservatives aren't utterly shit any more, their popularity has gone down because it's the usual left vs. right (or centre vs. centre as it's now known).

    That and the boundaries have been rigged so that the tories need more votes per MP than Labour and the Lib Dems need even more.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    That and the boundaries have been rigged so that the tories need more votes per MP than Labour and the Lib Dems need even more.

    Rigged?

    It's unfortunate alright but it doesn't mean it's rigged, just that in areas where the Tories have greater support are areas where the constituencies are largest.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Didn't the tories recently get a load of extra seats because the boundaries were shifted?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Didn't the tories recently get a load of extra seats because the boundaries were shifted?

    Yes, but not enough.

    I don't think its a conspiracy though, its just that boundaries changes are always behind population shifts
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I wish the Lib-Dems would hurry up and die already. I know they're the party of Gladstone, Bright and Lloyd George but they're so blimming irrelevant these days. It doesn't help that they just seem to live on another planet: not once did Ming mention terrorism in his conference speech, and they can't seem to go a year without stabbing their leader in the back.

    Still, here's to hoping their latest leadership election is as entertaining as the last one was.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    and they can't seem to go a year without stabbing their leader in the back.

    I seem to remember the knives being sharpened for Davy Cameron only a few weeks ago. :chin:
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Calvin wrote: »
    I seem to remember the knives being sharpened for Davy Cameron only a few weeks ago. :chin:

    Mere sabre-rattling.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    I wish the Lib-Dems would hurry up and die already. I know they're the party of Gladstone, Bright and Lloyd George but they're so blimming irrelevant these days. It doesn't help that they just seem to live on another planet: not once did Ming mention terrorism in his conference speech, and they can't seem to go a year without stabbing their leader in the back.

    How many leaders in how many years Mr. Tory? Hague, Smith, Howard, Cameron. Quite a collection. ;)

    I tend to agree with quite a few Lib Dem policies in principle, but they're never gonna get to impliment them on a national scale. I see them more as an effective pressure group. I couldn't care less if the other parties steal half of their ideas, as long as they get implimented. And I think they have by far the most progressive social policies, so I wouldn't like them to disappear.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Reports are saying he was pressured to leave cos at 66 he was too old..

    To be honest I was surprised he was ONLY 66 - he looked a lot older to me ..
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Runnymede wrote: »
    I wish the Lib-Dems would hurry up and die already. I know they're the party of Gladstone, Bright and Lloyd George but they're so blimming irrelevant these days. It doesn't help that they just seem to live on another planet: not once did Ming mention terrorism in his conference speech, and they can't seem to go a year without stabbing their leader in the back.

    Still, here's to hoping their latest leadership election is as entertaining as the last one was.

    Yes, and if we are really lucky we could end up with a thriving democracy like in the US with only two parties.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    Yes, and if we are really lucky we could end up with a thriving democracy like in the US with only two parties.

    What an odd thing to say. I wouldn't have thought there's much doubt that the US democratic system works, (and at levels such as council and state there's much less control from the centre than the UK), with a system of checks and balances. Now you may not like the policies that it espouses, but its certainly democratic.

    And number of parties doesn't neccessarily result in more or less democracy. Lots of parties may lead to a stable political system such as Germany or one where Government's continually fall and power is often devolved to unelected professional civil servants instead (Italy of old, though probably less so now)

    as an aside the UK has always had a multiplicity of parties, at least since the Labour Party arrived on the scene. Even in England the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems regularly win seats, in Northern Ireland there are various Unionist, nationalist and Republican parties. Scotland has the SNP and Wales has Plaid. Plus there are loads of parties which contest seats but never win anything in Westminster, such as the Natural Law Party and the Greens. if we had only two parties the winning party would normally have over 50% of the vote - I'm not sure if that's ever happened since the introduction of universal suffrage.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I dont know whether your experience has been any different but I have yet to meet an American who felt that either party represented them at all. Their elections are purely (it seems to me) about which party you hate less and there seems to be a distinct lack of choice.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    budda wrote: »
    I dont know whether your experience has been any different but I have yet to meet an American who felt that either party represented them at all. Their elections are purely (it seems to me) about which party you hate less and there seems to be a distinct lack of choice.

    But that's true of everywhere. Unless you're a dedicated party man or woman you're always going to be choosing a party which doesn't fully represent all you agree with. That's as true of the US, as it is off the UK, France, Germany or Japan

    At least in the US there is a clear winner and looser - you know what you're going to get. where there are Lots of parties there also tends to be some form of PR and then what you get is after horse-trading between the parties.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    But that's true of everywhere. Unless you're a dedicated party man or woman you're always going to be choosing a party which doesn't fully represent all you agree with. That's as true of the US, as it is off the UK, France, Germany or Japan

    At least in the US there is a clear winner and looser - you know what you're going to get. where there are Lots of parties there also tends to be some form of PR and then what you get is after horse-trading between the parties.

    I suppose you are right, there is a balance, obviously if there were a dozen parties then next to nothing would get done. But I still think that having a third large-ish party in the UK does give us more choice and it does widen the political debate.
Sign In or Register to comment.