But Why Not?

[poliphilo]

The Telegraph says voting for the Liberals will let Labour in; the Guardian says voting for the Liberals will let the Tories in. No-one is prepared to contemplate the possibility that voting for the Liberals will put the Liberals in.

Is it really so impossible?

Our political duopoly is less than 100 years old. The Liberals were a party of government within living memory.  In a situation where there is general disgust with the political caste and no enthusiasm for either of the two main parties or their leaders why shouldn't a third party sneak in and carry off the prize? The only thing that stands in the way of this outcome is a weary fatalism that negates the possibility of change.

Comments

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

We have the same situation over here. Right now, however, that may be a good thing, what with all these Teabaggers angling for position. Badk when, people were saying that those few who voted for the Green Party were responsible for George W. Bush's controversial "win". Most likely true, since they most likely would have voted Democrat otherwise.

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

The polls predict the closest election in a generation. It's highly likely that no party will come out of it with an over-all majority- which means some sort of coalition will have to be cobbled together.

[kutsuwamushi.livejournal.com]

But the political duopoly works so great in the United States. :D Why wouldn't you want to follow our footsteps?

[poliphilo.livejournal.com]

Well, quite. :)

[daisytells.livejournal.com]

LOL!

Go Lib-Dems

[methodius.livejournal.com]

I was in the UK during the previous general election touring Cornwall and visiting places by ancestors had lived in and in every village seeing people going to vote.

It was so nice to wake up the next morning in a Tory- and Labour-free zone. A vote for Labour is a vote for the people who gave you the Iraq War, the Afghanistan War, and the Yugoslavia War. A vote for the Tories is a vote for ?