Why shouldn't I vote lib dem?

jojo2004

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Not enough of them predicted it so that they might take action to stop it. Yes plenty saw it when 3 months off, how many saw it 3 years off? Hardly any, they were too busy making money and not thinking about sustainability. Just like the politicians eh?
So here we are, these are the people that you think would be vastly better at running the country. I disagree. Wholeheartedly.
We'll leave it at that I guess.

First up - predicting ANYTHING 3 years in advance is a very difficult art. Economic forecasts are done at best on a yearly basis. Expecting bankers etc to have been psychic is wildly unfair.

Second - the job of a bank is not to think about sustainability. The job of a private bank is to make money. Money for its shareholders. Do you know what the net result of all these terrible people making money (how dare they) is? More tax revenues to spend on public services. All those 'taxpayers' who work for the government, or in the public sector ought to remember that - they don't actually contribute any (net) real tax revenue to the economy. Perhaps time to stop bleating about how the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of one group of people?

The proposals for increased levels of regulation, to limit the size of banks so that the phenomenon of 'too big to fail' cannot happen again is being welcomed by the banking industry. Proposals to regulate and limit public sector jobs get met with - oh wait. Strikes.

nickmason

Four observations:

1) Inconsistency - I recently took part in Question Time for 6th formers, where I stood in for the Conservative MP against candidates from the other parties. The Liberal Democrat candidate was all over the place - apparently they are now in favour of scrapping tuition fees again (or was this because it was at a school?) The Labour candidate and I spent most of the session in a tag-team pointing out the inconsistencies - we were able to recognise different, but intellectually honest, positions. Similar with nuclear power, local planning, etc.
2) Dirty tricks. I don't know whether this is true elsewhere in the country, but we are facing a barrage of dirty tricks. It is endemic within the Liberal Democrats locally - I had the same in the local elections. Our (Conservative) policy has been to rise above it, and hold our nose and nerve. For what it's worth, I'd like to take the fight to them and rebut the claims, but those wiser than me know that a rebuttal just adds to the story. It's particulary galling when the LD candidate, with her "a plague on all your houses" and "true local" lines, is married to a LD MP in another part of the country.
3) Vince Cable has had a very easy time of late - I think most of the commentators have realised this, and are starting to turn their guns on him. His avuncular manner seems to mean he gets treated as a commentator rather than a politician. Watch this space for him getting more criticism over inconsistent policies and disagreemetns with Nick Clegg.
4) as above, the LDs are a very broad church - Nick Clegg is basically a eurofederalist version of David Cameron. Vince Cable is an old-fashioned keynesian economist who was in favour of much of Brown's economic policies. This might not be a reason not to vote for them, but I don't think their course is anything like as set as one might hope. None of the parties are about policies rather than mood, because that's the nature of democracy at the moment, but I think the LDs are less clear on what they really stand for than the others.

flossy_splodge

nickmason wrote: »

Four observations:

1) Inconsistency - I recently took part in Question Time for 6th formers, where I stood in for the Conservative MP against candidates from the other parties. The Liberal Democrat candidate was all over the place - apparently they are now in favour of scrapping tuition fees again (or was this because it was at a school?) The Labour candidate and I spent most of the session in a tag-team pointing out the inconsistencies - we were able to recognise different, but intellectually honest, positions. Similar with nuclear power, local planning, etc.
2) Dirty tricks. I don't know whether this is true elsewhere in the country, but we are facing a barrage of dirty tricks. It is endemic within the Liberal Democrats locally - I had the same in the local elections. Our (Conservative) policy has been to rise above it, and hold our nose and nerve. For what it's worth, I'd like to take the fight to them and rebut the claims, but those wiser than me know that a rebuttal just adds to the story. It's particulary galling when the LD candidate, with her "a plague on all your houses" and "true local" lines, is married to a LD MP in another part of the country.
3) Vince Cable has had a very easy time of late - I think most of the commentators have realised this, and are starting to turn their guns on him. His avuncular manner seems to mean he gets treated as a commentator rather than a politician. Watch this space for him getting more criticism over inconsistent policies and disagreemetns with Nick Clegg.
4) as above, the LDs are a very broad church - Nick Clegg is basically a eurofederalist version of David Cameron. Vince Cable is an old-fashioned keynesian economist who was in favour of much of Brown's economic policies. This might not be a reason not to vote for them, but I don't think their course is anything like as set as one might hope. None of the parties are about policies rather than mood, because that's the nature of democracy at the moment, but I think the LDs are less clear on what they really stand for than the others.

Gosh what a lot of nonsense.
Are you a sixth former?
Interesting to see your thoughts when maybe you have a little life experience.
Good luck.

nickmason

flossy_splodge wrote: »

Gosh what a lot of nonsense.
Are you a sixth former?
Interesting to see your thoughts when maybe you have a little life experience.
Good luck.

Not sure I should respond, but hey-ho, I'll rise to the bait.
1) Why don't you ask the Labour candidate, Mike Bunny. I suspect he'll agree. Certainly most of the sixth formers I spoke to afterwards did. (And no, I'm not one, and as per another thread, you'll see I have a little life experience!).
2) Simply true. I could give you a bundle of examples - but just three:
i) deliberately spreading rumours of candidates living elsewhere than the patch
ii) taking credit for something that someone else had done
iii) quoting a conservative candidate as saying "you've had a good local MP" as proof that "even the Conservatives think we're good", when he was referring to people in another constituency who are switching due to boundary changes. Clever, yes, but clean, no.
3) http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/dailypolitics/andrewneil/2010/04/treating_the_libdems_like_big.html an example.
4) Just my opinion I guess. One shared by most people though.

ninky_2

nickmason wrote: »

Nick Clegg is basically a eurofederalist version of David Cameron.

i have to take issue with you on that. david cameron really is a conservative to nick clegg's liberal and on many issues other than europe. just look at the tories attitude to giving tax breaks to married couples. it might just be a small amount, but why? and on gay rights nick clegg has an 86 percent pro-gay voting record whist cameron scores just 36 percent.

it's the same old tories with the same old reactionary values telling us how we should live.

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/what_we_do/parliamentary/general_election_2010/3870.asp

marklv

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Seriously.

I don't know too much about them....maybe this is a reason I should not be voting! But, this thread is for that purpose, to tell me why I should not vote for them.

My reasons for swaying towards voting for them (pretty much secured my vote)

1. They seem far more honest that the other two parties. Not completely honest I have no doubt, but seem more honest.

2. Have actually said what they will cut....and I like what they will cut.

3. Vince Cable.

4. Would like to see them have a chance. How badly can they really screw up? Labour screw up massively it seems each time they have the chance. Tories never seem to get anywhere as they keep on getting handed a poisoned chalice. Lib Dems just sit on the sidelines, making, what seems, decent, sound, suggestions.

So my question is, why are they 3rd runners all the time? What is making other people opt for other parties? What am I missing?

The only good thing about the Lib Dems is that they are not Tories. They are a Tory-lite party - a bit like a latte or cappuccino if espresso is too strong for you.

leveller2911

marklv wrote: »

The only good thing about the Lib Dems is that they are not Tories. They are a Tory-lite party - a bit like a latte or cappuccino if espresso is too strong for you.

I suppose the positive point on the Lib-dems is that they haven't ruined the country like Nu-labour have in the last 13 yrs and also the devestation the Tories reaped on our industries before them......;)

In a wierd kinda way they perhaps deserve more votes.....

Wheezy_2

Wookster wrote: »

I have come to the conclusion that I will vote Lib Dem, because

- George Osborne lacks all credibility
- I have some misgivings about how the Tories would govern
- Lib Dems have the sage of York (Vince Cable) who is the only political figure who really understands the economic issues at hand

Oh dear, that worked out well, didn't it?

First prize goes to Masomnia :T

Masomnia wrote: »

Why should you vote Lib Dem?

A few years ago they wanted a 50p tax rate, then they didn't. They were very pro-Europe, now they're not. They wanted to scrap tuition fees for students, now they don't.

Their policies change with the tide, or whoever happens to be in charge.
I honestly don't know what they stand for, as I can't keep up. What's the philosophy behind it?

It's a 'no' from me.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

1. They seem far more honest that the other two parties. Not completely honest I have no doubt, but seem more honest.

Lib Dems are honest??? you being serious???
Clegg will get into bed with whoever will give him power, he lied to get to the current position and will lie again.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

2. Have actually said what they will cut....and I like what they will cut.

they've back tracked on that too

Graham_Devon wrote: »

3. Vince Cable.

this one made me laugh - the 'going to war' with Sky worked out well for him...

surprise, surprise - the No 1 post!!

The_White_Horse wrote: »

the libdems are just a pointless waste of space. its like voting for luke warm water.

all you will get is higher taxes.

basically, if you want to pay more tax and waste your vote, vote libdem.

WhiteHorse

Sell it. Why should anyone vote LibDem?