Why shouldn't I vote lib dem?

Pobby

I don`t understand all this Vince Cable obsession. There were enough people a number of years ago, including myself, that could see what was going with lending and the run away housing market. You didn`t have to be a genius. It`s a shame that no one, it would appear, had enough average intelligence in our ruling party to see the same.

Graham_Devon

Pobby wrote: »

I don`t understand all this Vince Cable obsession. There were enough people a number of years ago, including myself, that could see what was going with lending and the run away housing market. You didn`t have to be a genius. It`s a shame that no one, it would appear, had enough average intelligence in our ruling party to see the same.

For me, it's merely telling it how it is, which he does all the time. He actually responds to a question, actually answering the question asked....not telling us what "we want to hear".

How many times do politicians answer a question with "what the nation actually wants to know" or "what the nation actually wants to hear".

That does my nut in. What we want to hear is the answer to the question asked.....not TOLD that we don't want to hear that, we actually want to hear X Y and Z.

Sweey_as_a_nut

What we really need in the party that's elected is people with brains instead of mouths.

How I see MPs these days is a mouth on legs, and the mouth and legs are divided by a money belt.

A._Badger

There is a simple answer to the OP's question: because a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a federal Europe. And what that means is, effectively, you are not actually voting for a LibDem government but even more government by unelected EU career politicians.

Pobby

Agree Graham. However it was pretty clear what was the power house to the boom. Dumb lending. How did Gordon think we were going to get out of that one?

Graham_Devon

Pobby wrote: »

Agree Graham. However it was pretty clear what was the power house to the boom. Dumb lending. How did Gordon think we were going to get out of that one?

Even more dumb lending, it seems.

Sapphire

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?

I agree with you, but if voting for them means that labour will get in again, then I will opt for the Tories (just to prevent labour from being elected - hate them).

Pobby

Nutrisse. I have your insulting PM, child. Will send it off to abuse when I can be bothered.

Pobby

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Even more dumb lending, it seems.

Just out of interest, not hi jacking your thread, I think you are right about the lending but surely no government wants to rule over a recession. Brown must have had another plan. Not that it is evident.

A._Badger

Pobby wrote: »

Just out of interest, not hi jacking your thread, I think you are right about the lending but surely no government wants to rule over a recession. Brown must have had another plan. Not that it is evident.

Surely, what happened is that Brown believed his policies wouldn't lead to a recession but was about as wrong as he could have been?

After all, his party has 'previous' in this respect.