Having a bit of difficulty parsing the syntax of this sentence. Rephrase?
Conversation
Replying to
Ah...
Literally telling people that you will tell them whatever will make them vote for you is bad politics, IMHO.
2
1
Replying to
Well, yeah.
The good liars don't tell you they're liars.
It sometimes takes an idiot to trust a liar, but it takes a real moron to trust someone who openly admits to being full of shit.
1
1
Replying to
It always sounds like some kind of attempt at spin, but I *genuinely* don't know what the point of the Lib Dems actually is. Unless they are literally the party of keeping everything pretty much the same for most people... maybe that really is their thing.
1
Replying to
My understanding of the UK is there's a widespread trust in institutions and governance that has only recently started to erode in a big way.
If I'm right, it's pretty easy to fit the platform "we just do the stuff you expect," into that political climate.
2
1
Then there is the secondary point: not every political party exists to take power, per se.
There are other things that can be gained even as a minority, so long as you're not in a one- or two-party system.
2
1
Replying to
Yeah, in theory, although I suspect you have to narrow down your activism (as it effectively becomes) to a relatively small range of key points - eg the Greens on Climate Change (and opposing may of the things that could help, such as nuclear power and GM crops, but I digress).
1
Replying to
You're forgetting the other side of the coin is that politicians are generally underpaid & often incompetent.
If you can secure enough influence to protect the right interests, your bread can be buttered for a long time. It can be as minor as securing a certain contract for sbdy
2
1
As for activism, well, yes. But it's something that has worked extremely well for Norwegian political parties, historically speaking.
With govts commonly holding a parliamentary minority, it's actually fairly easy to undercut them on key votes (thus securing outsize influence).
1
Replying to
In some ways that does sound like a better situation, but does it lead to deadlock?
1
Replying to
There is a parliamentary mechanism, a vote of confidence, where the cabinet calls a vote on an issue. If they lose the vote, they disband the cabinet.
It's a way to stop minor parties bullying too much when they have the deciding vote, and also helps remove weak governments.
"Pass this or we go," tends to result in shit getting passed, but if you miscalculate you're out the door.
Means they have to think really hard about what they're doing if they're not confident they can secure a majority.
Replying to
Interesting... so does policy generally flow through with reasonable expedience? Or are there periods of only risk-averse policy-making?
1
Replying to
That strongly depends on the motivations of parliament, but it's generally not a good idea to advertise your indecisiveness while in power...
That said, Norwegian culture is generally quite risk-averse, so most policy-making until recently has reflected that.
1
Show replies