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.
Conversation
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.
2
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
However, despite a bunch of cool parliamentary mechanisms, there is also some bullshit.
Coalitions are made at the discretion of the constituent parties, so you can gain a "majority" by combining three or four parties.
Replying to
Not always. But every major party took fairly major hits when the social democrats moved right on a number of contentious issues.
Overall the redistribution favored the right (why vote Labour if they won't act the part, and also the zeitgeist), so they formed a megacoalition.
1
Also, it's a fucking democracy. There's nothing preventing voters from sawing their own legs off, or politicians from fucking up.
As they've done for two terms now...
1
Show replies