There would be no demand for independence if we had better government from Westminster. Half a century ago I argued with Donald Dewar about the failings, customs and traditions of the Westminster parliament.

His answer was that a Home Rule parliament could be a model for the reform of Westminster.

If the nationalists are going to campaign on the constitutional issue, why not take the opportunity for airing the LibDem view, PrR, federal UK etc.?

One thing you should not do is campaign on devolved issues. That’s irrelevant and part of the Westminster confrontational culture. (they prefer their Oxbridge debating games to serious politics).

The second thing not to do, as any salesman would tell you, is avoid the crass error of rubbishing the competition. Others do it: see above re Oxbridge.

Whilst I would vote Lib Dem if I was a constituent, and would campaign for the party if I had time (I don’t), I can’t say I would mind if the SNP won. Scottish Labour represents the very worst of the Labour Party in talent, ability, policy and clearly ethics. It’s demise must be hastened.

Report for Glasgow City Council

The report emphasizes the large difference between perceptions of sectarianism and personal experience/attitudes. For example, 83% of respondents would not mind one bit if a close family member married a different religion, with only 3% minding a great deal.

Your contribution was very well argued. Our expectations for this seat will not be high but we must put in a reasonable and reasoned effort to maintain what support we have in this constituency and get them out to vote. A low turn out is very likely and a campaign on the lines you suggest might produce a better outcome than expected.

They do no throw £100k at every By-election as some seem to think, but instead they make a calm decision of what they want to achieve and what it will take in terms of money and resources to achieve that. Sometimes this will involve spending large amounts to fight off a squeeze and stay in third, rather than fourth, while sometimes it will involve going for victory. Have a little trust. The whole department, from Rennard down are very, very skilled in my view and I trust them to do the right thing each and every time.

Some of the comments here remind me very much of politicians interfereing with the day to day running of schools and hopsitals that we as a party are so opposed to.

So if we’re looking for a methodology which is all-encompassing (whether regarding alcohol consumption or choosing an approach for by-election strategy) we need to have a plan for all situations so as to be prepared with all eventualities.

Like Nick Clegg says “there are no one-size-fits-all solutions”.

Senseco, I’m surprised you question whether using the system to educate people is workable since we already have it to a limited extent with food orders and under parental supervision in pubs.

You appear to be in the same philosophical territory as Roger Scruton and Adrian Rogers.

Oranjepan,

The binge drinking problem has been exacerbated by (a) the proliferation of mega pubs and (b) the declining relative cost of liquor, not because 18-21 year-olds are inherently wicked and in need of a good thrashing as the target audience for these draconian measures likes to think.

I have no problem with banning things that are inherently wrong. Drinking alcohol, however, is morally neutral, and in moderation not even harmful.

Whether or not staggering the age limits would be workable I am not in a position to judge. The result might just be a load of confusing notices pinned up on bar architraves.

I know perfectly well what drinking is and have done it myself, thank you very much.

Yes, you are in the wrong party. You are an authoritarian conservative who considers that rights should be given only to those who deserve them. Rather in the manner of a Victorian schoolmaster.

I am a drinker, but I would never say that the right to drink alcohol is a universal human right.

And I am not in the wrong party. I think perhaps you are- have you considered the Monster Raving Loony Party?

“Senseco – do you advocate lowering the drinking age in line with reality to promote the freedom so many already exercise without control?”

Yes. I think 16 is probably the most realistic cut-off point.

If we accept that the ability to purchase alcohol is a fundamental human right, then there have to be very pressing grounds for placing restrictions on it. The fact that a minority uses a right in a harmful way is hardly justification of depriving the majority of that right.

The recent clampdowns have certainly had unintended consequences. It would surely be preferable for young people to drink alcohol in pubs and bars where they can at least be seen than in bus shelters and darkened parks.

Yesterday, I saw a notice in a pub window announcing that anyone who appears to be under the age of 25 (!!) will be required to show proof of identity. We really are heading towards the dreaded Orwellian police state.

By the way, I’m a teetotaller.

As a campaigning machine, the Lib Dems need to be turned through almost 180 degrees. We have spent 20-odd years able to smash big Tory majorities where they have been strong due to the Conservative’s national unpopularity. If henley had hapened in 1998 instead of 2008 we might have got a Newbury- or Christchurch-like result.

As it is, with a resurgent Tory party, Henley was the equivilent of trying to win in Manchester, Sheffield, the Welsh valleys or somewhere similarly rock-solid Labour in the mid 90s.

The first step ought to be to decide the parameters. What is a good result? A win is always great but realistically, The SNP have more of a chance. We CAN, however, hope for a 2nd placing.

Messaging. What do people want and what do we stand for? I think the big themes for fighting Labour in the future have already been mentioned on the thread:

Tax – We want to tax the poor less and let them spend their own money. Campaign on council tax/LIT, cutting income tax or Brown’s 10p scam.

Equality – Whether you want to deal with sectarianism, Souter, the realities of immigration or the new Legalised Racism bill – We should be making equal rights our distinctive issue.

Regeneration – Go to the vast majority of Labour’s inner city heartlands and look around you. Many of these areas are desperate for renewal, either in housing, transport, green areas or the good old Lib Dem street-sweeping.

None of this is rocket science, of course, but it’s really just born out of a revulsion at some of the by-election campaigns I’ve seen (from all parties) which are clearly not based on those parties beliefs or what is right but just designed to incite fear or anger.

If we went into Glasgow East talking sense about respect in our communities, alleviating poverty or giving people their local areas back, I’d actually WANT to make the journey because as a Lib Dem it’s the kind of campaign I’d be proud to be a part of. And in Labour heartlands south of the border, it’ll work too.

I also agree with the legacy issue. We need to decide what Glasgow East would be left with after the byelection team has all gone home: data, a ward/wards worked that hadn’t been done, groundwork for 2009/2011? But the vital thing is that the decision needs to be based on what THEY actually need and ask for.

You are clearly in the wrong party.

An SNP victory would also be seen as an endorsement for the raising of the legal drinking age to 25 (sorry, 21) in Scotland, leading to Brown and his gang doing the same in the rest of the United Kingdom.

In 1970, Parliament settled upon a universal age of majority of 18. Salmond, an unprincipled opportunist of the highest order, is seeking to unravel this advance in human freedom.

No-one who values civil liberties and human dignity should give this s**mbag the slightest succour.

“You have contradicted yourself at least twice.

Firstly, you admit that there will be local variations, but when I point to four of those variations you call that “whistling in the dark” (as though you can wave a magic wand of cause the data to go away).”

On the contrary, you’re trying to ignore the message of the national opinion polls by pointing to a few examples of local authority elections where we’ve done better than the national polls would indicate.

There will always be local variations, but unless the national polls are badly wrong, they are variations against the background of a strong swing in favour of the Tories.

“Secondly, you tell us that we should be targeting Labour, but then in the next breath assert that 30+ gains from Labour is illusory.”

No, the poster who talked about 30+ gains from Labour is the one I was disagreeing with. If you check above, you’ll see I said s/he was in the realms of fantasy.

I’m saying the main danger is losses to the Tories, and the strategy of going on the attack against Labour to try to compensate for these losses is – psephologically – nonsensical.

That’s true even with the polls as they are now, because they indicate only a tiny swing from Labour to us. It will be even more true if there is a degree of recovery by Labour before the next election.