manxman8180 Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 I'm sure this will barely raise a flutter, just as the party in general does....... Going......Go Ming......Gone In fairness they've been even more low profile lately, with the resurgence of Cameron and Brown fumbling the are we / aren't we election fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted October 15, 2007 Share Posted October 15, 2007 He never got over the comics parodying him as an old buffer, or Grandpa off the Simpsons. He got squeezed between the main parties and didn't have the charisma to make his party anything other than a think tank which put out policy statements ignored by everyone but the most nerdish pol. No idea who'll reinvigorate them - or if it really matters! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I think this departure says more about the people of the UK than it says about Menzies Campbell. Ageism seems to have been the biggest battle he has had to fight since becoming leader, which both the press and various commentators have been allowed to get away with. Ageism is rife in the UK, but imagine if he were a black leader, would he have been allowed to have been so ridiculed because of his colour? If people refer to you as 'Grandpa Simpson' in a media driven age, what else will errode other than your ability to get your message across and your credibility? Campbell is a very capable presenter, but a two party squeeze, and the usual Lib Dem little press coverage helped seal his fate. Every appearance on question time for example resulted in underlying questions regarding his age. Ming Campbell has been an excellent foreign policy and international affairs spokesman in the past, trouncing any 'competition' on programs such as Newsnight and Channel 4 news, which IMO are the only news programs left that offer any sort of intellectual debate. Campbell has been intellectually consistant over Iraq, the errosion of civil liberties and the true causes of terrorism in the UK. The Liberal Democrats have not been short of political ideas, many of which have now been unceromonioulsy 'stolen' and adopted by both the Labour and Conservative party's (without those party's taking into account their own grass root politics and fundamental beliefs - for presentation and spin purposes). These ideas included: higher environmental taxes to offset cuts in other taxes, changes on inheritance tax, with perhaps the exception of a raft of policies reflecting the protection of civil liberties. The Liberal Democrats are the only party trying to get rid of the most hated tax of all - the council tax, which has become a major stealth tax often increasing at well over twice the rate of inflation in many areas, and which forces many pensioners into poverty. IMO, this departure, the consistent bullshit of NuShite Blair and NuShite Chameleon Brown, and the Chameleon qualities of Cameron - shows that the political system has changed so much, that whatever party gets in, the pressure of the media, spin and presentation are being allowed to undermine even the most basic fundamental beliefs a party might hold. A new Lib Dem leader is likely to, because of the power of the media and the gullibility of the British people, be formed from the same 'Cow-Pat' mould as Blair, Brown and Cameron - which will do nothing but further undermine British politics. They say that children learn from their parents. In the UK we have political leaders that lie, spin and steal - so what message does that send to Joe Public and even businesses - and even to our own politicians on the island with their 'copy and paste' legislation workbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Sensible policies but too little impact. Given the amount of coverage they get, the Lib Dems do pretty well in elections, but they really need a lot more media exposure (in particular the patronage of tabloids) in order to gain power nationally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Sensible policies but too little impact. Given the amount of coverage they get, the Lib Dems do pretty well in elections, but they really need a lot more media exposure (in particular the patronage of tabloids) in order to gain power nationally. Yet of the popular vote at the last election Labour got 35.3% (yet got 356 seats), Conservatives 32.3% (but only got 198 seats) and the Liberal Democrats got 22.1% (but only got 62 seats). With 55% of the vote the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats combined can still not check Labour. Labour has also renaged on it's 1997 promise to bring in proportional representation. Democracy my arse - the whole system stinks...and the lies, spin and media just add to the smell. The only way the people are going to get any say in the future is by proportional representation. The government should be elected by the whole of the UK - and not just by half the constituencies whose majority changes +/- a couple of thousand gullible people who change their mind every election, to whom these spin merchants invest all of their time pandering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 PR is great in theory, but can result in a lack of strategic direction and slow progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 PR is great in theory, but can result in a lack of strategic direction and slow progress. But when compared to rapid progress in the wrong strategic direction - against the will of 55% of the voting public? I don't believe all of this propaganda, designed only to serve the self interests of two party's. I don't believe we would be in the mess we're in now, or on the slippery slope we're on had the UK implemented PR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 Fair point. My ideal UK would have (i) an president elected by STV as head of state for a fixed term (ii) representatives elected by STV for defined geographic areas for a fixed term (iii) a strategic direction set by the president (iv) an executive chosen by the president from among representatives to develop policies (v) a legislature, with non-executive representatives able to debate and vote on policies proposed by the executive (vi) a simplified code of laws governing relationships between citizens, between citizens and the state and setting out the powers of elected and unelected state employees (vii) an independent judicial system responsible for solving disputes between citizens and between citizens and the state and for determining the constitutionality of the acts of elected and unelected state employees (viii) bodies charged with providing vital public services (ix) simple referenda on any proposed changes to the legal code The current system is weighed down by history and no longer serves the interests of the people effectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.