Skip to content

An amusing view of politics

It would now seem as if the LibDems have realised that it is the Tories that they have to keep on board to keep their seats, and so they have tacked right.

A party bought that cheaply has shown its true colours.

Wot? A political party should not swing with the voters?

34 thoughts on “An amusing view of politics”

  1. If the Tories pick up votes that they lost in the Shires, then the Lib Dems will surely lose those seats they won there, swinging right or no.

  2. Trying to keep their seats isn’t being bought cheaply in political terms, there is no higher or more important goal than that (not saying that’s a happy thing, but ’tis so).

    This also reminds of an article some time back that argued that the fashion magazines/industry weren’t leading their readers in the right direction (insufficient Green stuff if I remember correctly). Kind of missed the point that magazines chase readers, not so much lead them.

  3. From the potato’s latest blockbuster…..I’ve been self-employed since I was 26. I still have an employee. He’s sitting the other side of the camera at the moment that I am recording this.

    Yet didn’t his son, continuing the family trade, set up a bogus LLP to avoid being an employee?

  4. Boddicker

    Murphy’s son operates through Elidir Productions LLP.

    There are two members

    Thomas John Murphy (thankfully perhaps not John Thomas)

    Jacqueline Anne Murphy.

    Regular readers will note that Jacqueline not only has expertise in medicine and bad handwriting (as a former GP), but also in tax (as a member of Tax Research LLP) and now, apparently, in video production.

    Polymathism sure runs in the Murphy family!

  5. He realy has trouble with cause and effect. Any political party that does not adapt (or lie) to win/retain seats will pretty soon be no more than a political commentator.

  6. To be fair to the Potato, a political party should have a purpose and stick to it. If that isn’t what the voters want, then they should disappear. Otherwise you get a Conservative party that wants to appeal to illegal immigrants and trannies. Or a Labour party that fucks over the working man for the establishment vote.

  7. Bloke in North Dorset

    Joe,

    The only purpose the Conservative Party ever had was to govern and they’ve tacked whichever way they thought they needed to achieve that goal. That’s why they were comfortable swing from Heath to Thatcher to Major to Cameron and even Boris.

    Of course they got it spectacularly wrong this time but they’ll be back.

  8. Mr Murphy has completely misunderstood the nature of the Liberal Democrats. They are a party of pure opportunism; neither fundamentally left nor right of centre. They triangulate constantly and adopt whatever policies will maximise their vote in the current political climate, They were, after all, the first major British political party to call for an in/out referendum on EU membership, then immediately pledged to overturn the result when the populace voted to leave.

  9. In the 00ies I got loads of people thanking me for the “we want a referendum” leaflets I was delivering, saying they’d vote for us so they could finally vote to get out of the EU. 🙂

  10. They triangulate constantly and adopt whatever policies will maximise their vote in the current political climate, They were, after all, the first major British political party to call for an in/out referendum on EU membership, then immediately pledged to overturn the result when the populace voted to leave.

    I don’t understand how someone can write two such contradictory sentences in a row and not notice.

  11. Those statements are not contradictory.

    They called an in/out referendum not because they believed such a referendum should be held, but because nobody else had proposed one and it would enable them to attract Brexiteer votes.

    After the referendum, both the Tories and Labour pledged to support the outcome, so the Lib Dems campaigned to overturn it to attract Remainer votes.

    Do you understand now?

  12. Perhaps lliam Dhone is close ? It would be fair to say that the LibDems triangulate constantly and adopt whatever policies will maximise their vote amongst those who feel let down by the current political climate. They were, after all, the first major British political party to call for an in/out referendum on EU membership, but then, after the referendum immediately pledged to overturn the result when the populace voted to leave.

  13. @The Meissen Bison

    Yes, precisely. The Lib Dems simply look at the other parties’ offerings and say whatever they are not saying in order to mop up votes. As such, people who were horrified that the Lib Dems abandoned their pledge on student fees to enter the 2010 coalition with the Conservatives completely missed the point. They never believed in the pledge in the first place. It was merely a ploy to attract the student vote.

  14. Do you understand now?

    I understand that you’ve added Liberal Democrat motivations (that you’ve pulled out of your arse) to your position in order to rationalise your way out of your contradiction.

    Your basic premise was that the Lib/Dems are weather vane cynics and you offered as evidence an example of them adopting a profoundly undemocratic response opposing the expressed preference of the voters. It was a shit argument and no amount of post-polishing the turd can save it.

  15. Iliam Dhone

    You’re making me think of the LNP policy here in Queensland where they’ve promised to keep the coal burners running indefinitely. But they’ve also promised to build pumped hydro power storage. However they’ve allocated no money at all to do so.

    So this makes me hopeful that they’ll keep their implicit promise and give the renewables the finger. After all, they can always whinge that the central government won’t pay for it.

  16. In areas where there is another strong “none of the above” party the LibDems don’t do as well. Where I live the localists are seen as the “kick ’em all” vote and so out-vote the LibDems.

    LibDem strength is also strongly based on local activists. Piss them off (for instance, by going into coalition with the Conservatives in Parliament), and your activists walk away. Piss off Labour activists and they’ll just work EVEN HARDER to try and regain the purity of the party. Piss off Conservative activists and the party just pays for campaign work.

  17. “Your basic premise was that the Lib/Dems are weather vane cynics and you offered as evidence an example of them adopting a profoundly undemocratic response opposing the expressed preference of the voters. It was a shit argument and no amount of post-polishing the turd can save it.”

    Its not at all a bad argument. If you are an opportunist vote seeker then you may seek to find votes in the losing side of an argument, especially in one as close as the Brexit vote. In the wake of the referendum there was definitely a large Remain section of the electorate who did want to overthrow the result, the Brexit Deranged types, and the LDs decided to mine that seam of votes, as no one else was offering them anything. It did work to some extent, as they won 4 more seats in 2017 over 2015, even though their overall vote was down slightly.
    With Brexit being a very regional thing, with some areas highly Leave and others highly Remain, an opportunist grab for those Remain votes could yield a few extra seats here and there, and did.

  18. My membership cancellation for Reform has been processed this morning after Tice’s ill-judged comments that “We have nothing to do with them. Want nothing to do with them.” referring to the peaceful protesters at the British Patriots rally last weekend.

    And I’m not alone in that – a large number of people supported Reform as they were something different from the Red and Blue arse cheeks (and Yellow hole) of the traditional political parties. He might have thought it was politically expedient to avoid being called racist by the media but it’s time he learned to grow some balls.

  19. @ PJF

    It appears that nobody else had any difficulty in understanding my point – that the Lib Dems’ decision to take two contradictory positions on the same issue (that the British public should and should not have the final say as to the UK’s membership of the EU) reinforces rather than contradicts my argument that they are pure opportunists.

    On that basis, instead of fulminating and swearing because you’re worried that you now appear an idiot in public, perhaps you should concentrate on improving your reading comprehension so you don’t make a fool of yourself in the first place?

  20. @ “Joe Smith”…

    Reform, as a new, untried (and cordially hated by the uniparties) party needs to tread very carefully and pick its battles wisely. Regardless of your or my opinion of TR and his followers, it is undeniable that it’s represented as a severely “toxic brand” by the MSM and uniparties and Tice took the safe line in disassociating Reform from the weekend’s demonstration – which could have gone horribly wrong, but thankfully didn’t. A move towards TR might be considered to be a good idea in the future, but it’s “tomorrow’s battle”.

  21. We had this all through hte Ukip years. NF and the like wanting to join, BNP folk. Now, whether Tommy is likethe NF or BNP isn’t the point. It’s that the media paint him as such. Therefore Reform has to be v careful about any tainting with that brush.

    Don’t forget, politics isn’t about reality, it’s about what people believe – and, what they can be made to believe.

    That’s before we get to the other calculation. Sure, everyone’s going to shout that Reform are “far right” anyway. But there’s a significant value to being able to point further right and say “What, us? That’s them over there!”

  22. @Tim
    Don’t you think “I’m far-right and proud of it” might work a bit better these days? Seems to in Holland, France, Germany, Austria …

  23. I think that – and it’s only me thinking it – that British politics is moving that way, yes. But there’s a vast middle which just won’t take to it if it’s openly St George’s Flag and white van man. Emily Thornberry, I know. And more a reflection of the British class system than anything else.

    Yes, I know, the one eyed BNP bloke actually was right on Question Time about grooming gangs. Obviously, the BBC/Guardian etc are never going to give him credit for that either. But my feels – and I emphasise feels for, not anything more than that – are that no British political party that openly embraces that end of the spectrum will then succeed nationally.

    Having written that out I think it probably is that class system. You can convince – maybe – the middle classes (haute, mid and lower) that migration needs to be dealt with, that we’ve a problem with race and crime, benefits need reform, all sorts of things. But you can’t if your party includes those those middle classes think are common and uncouth.

    To an extent this is me also being vile. Because most of those protesting are not uncouth etc. But I did work in Ukip, talking to the press every day. And that the BNP were that step further out was one of the very things that allowed us into that press. If we’d been inclusive of that BNP then we’d have been outcasts – even more than we were.

    And this is nothing to do with policy. Or near entirely not. The UK is 80% or whatever it is middle class. Being the next party in from the lumpenproletariat supported right party (however wrong that identification might be) can work. Being that end of the spectrum doesn’t.

    Hmm, does that make sense?

    That policy moves right, sure, that can be done. Is. But Reform, whoever, needs that party further out in order to remain respectable.

    15 years ago that was definitely Farage’s view. I assume it still is today.

  24. There’s little doubt that small ‘L’ liberalism, libertarianism, whatever, has turned out to be a cultural suicide pact.

  25. It appears that nobody else had any difficulty in understanding my point . . .

    Argumentum ad populum. Number of shits given = 0

    . . . reinforces rather than contradicts my argument that they are pure opportunists.

    No it doesn’t. If they were pure opportunists they would have populist policies to generate maximum votes/seats. Announcing a policy to overturn the just specifically expressed preference of the electorate indicates a principled stance on the issue (one entirely consistent with their long standing position). This is my basic objection to your original post – a political “party of pure opportunism” will not adopt policies that diminish their electoral appeal. It’s not a political objection, it’s a logical objection.

    . . . instead of fulminating . . .

    Pro tip: mind reading isn’t real. Your accuracy with me is no better than your accuracy with the Lib/Dems.

    . . . and swearing . . .

    Shock! Horror! Naughty words used at the Tim Worstall blog. Pompous twats hardest hit.

  26. It did work to some extent, as they won 4 more seats . . .

    Lol, ffs Jim, this is ridiculous. Sorry – fucking ridiculous. I’m giggling out loud imaging these cynical and devious pure opportunists twiddling their moustaches as they congratulate themselves on their cunning plan to increase their hoard from 8 to 12 seats out of 650.

    Lib/Dem electoral performance is basically the Two Ronnies election sketch where Labour gets the left side of the country, the Conservatives get the right side, and the Liberals get Rockall. Which is to say it’s largely down to how the two main parties do in the context of first-past-the-post that determines the Lib/Dem result.

    The Liberal Democrats are not pure opportunists – because they stick with a pretty consistent and unpopular set of policies that keeps them on the fringe.

  27. Candidly, PJF is Ritchie, surely?

    Funny thing is though, Chris, there’s Ritchie being quoted up there saying the Lib/Dems are being political cynical; and there’s Iliam Dhone droning that Ritchie doesn’t understand their nature and that they are actually politically cynical.

    Yet sweary old me pointing out such double-fuckheadedness is like Ritchie. Sad!

  28. @ PJF

    At last you’ve managed to articulate your objection to my argument. It took a while but we finally got there.

    Nonetheless, I still think you’re wrong.

    You can certainly argue that the Lib Dems were principled to propose an in/out referendum or that they were principled to pledge to overturn the result. The problem is that they played the same issue both ways and that is clearly an unprincipled stance. To argue against that assertion is deliberately perverse – but then you have the unmistakable tone of a borderline troll.

    You’ve also misunderstood what I meant by the Lib Dems being populists. They don’t opt for the policies that command the greatest support among the voting public: they opt for whatever policies the Tories and Lib Dems are not offering in order to pick off dissatisfied voters. That’s because they’re well aware that they’re never likely to be the major party in a government and they’re simply looking to maximise their seat count within realistic parameters.

    As for swearing: doesn’t bother me in the slightest, you cunt. (See what I did there?) The only reason I mentioned it is that it’s something trolls usually resort to when they’re not getting their own way in an argument.

    Finally, pro tip: I have been both a professional politician and a professional writer. I strongly suspect that you are neither. Or to put it another way: when you’re in a hole, stop digging. Because I can see right through you and I suspect that goes for everyone else on here.

  29. @ Marius:

    The operative word in my comment was “major”.

    Obviously the Referendum Party came first, but were they in any way “major”? They had one MP for about two months as a result of a defection, not an election victory.

  30. The problem is that they played the same issue both ways and that is clearly an unprincipled stance. To argue against that assertion is deliberately perverse –

    You certainly show traits of being a professional politician (and I’m amused you seem to think that makes you a better person). Distractions and cheap rhetorical tricks are indeed your stock in trade, even if they are sixth form level. Attempting to pre-diss a potential response is pathetically revealing that you know you’re on thin ice.

    And it was a wasted effort because I’m not even arguing against that assertion. Once again (third time?): I’m arguing that your assertion above that the Lib/Dems are “a party of pure opportunism” was logically contradicted by your contemporaneous description of them behaving in a way that will diminish their popularity.

    You say “troll” like it’s a bad thing. You know “Ragging on Ritchie” is trolling, don’t you? Despite limited time I’m still managing to keep you dancing with a floundering defence of a simple error.

  31. @ PJF

    Stating that I’ve been a professional politician certainly wasn’t a moral judgement. Most of the elected members I worked with were decent people trying to create a better society, but I also encountered a number of out-and-out psychopaths.

    I’m not sure I’d exactly call “Ragging on Ritchie” trolling, as Tim isn’t usually perverse in his interpretations – Mr Murphy is frequently wrong in his assertions as the subject matter of his blog has moved from accounting and tax (in which he has genuine expertise, even if I frequently disagree with his conclusions) to economics and geopolitics (on which he is very shaky).

    But your remark about “keeping me dancing” has hit the nail on the head – this conversation is becoming a time-sink for both of us and we’re not going to end up agreeing. You think that the Lib Dems’ decision to campaign for “Bollocks to Brexit” was principled because it limited their appeal. I think it was cynical as they were attempting to pick off votes from a sector of the electorate ignored by the Conservatives and Labour.

    Let’s agree to differ and move on.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *