Lib Dems up 14%!! (Telegraph)

Generali

markharding557 wrote: »

There is a very good chance the conservatives will be the ones in a coalition with the libdems

That's an interesting one. Which of the two big parties is going to be prepared to give up the most to bring the Lib Dems onside?

Well given that the 'Dems' part of the party came from a Labour party schism and that they are a broadly leftist party Labour would be the obvious party for them to form a coalition.

But...

There's the 'Lib' part of the party (which kinda seems to be in the ascendancy) who would be much more comfortable in Government with a modern Conservative Party.

If the Lib Dems get a big enough share of the vote perhaps the Tories could tempt enough over with a Libertarian hue to their policies.

Who knows as this is really uncharted territory. As a result politicians aren't likely to have good skills in coalition making.

Blacklight

I'm just waiting for the truth to come out about the tax rises the LibDems have up their sleeve. It's all rose tinted while we're talking about the NHS and immigration but just wait until the real news surfaces about the tax hikes for any but the lowest paid.

I can't see a great deal of support in any quarter for that.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

Blacklight wrote: »

I'm just waiting for the truth to come out about the tax rises the LibDems have up their sleeve. It's all rose tinted while we're talking about the NHS and immigration but just wait until the real news surfaces about the tax hikes for any but the lowest paid.

I can't see a great deal of support in any quarter for that.

I don't mind paying higher taxes for a visibly better society, like those of Scandinavian countries.

Charterhouse

The 14% is unweighted, FYI. The weighted numbers implied 36/28/24 I think.

mbga9pgf

markharding557 wrote: »

There is a very good chance the conservatives will be the ones in a coalition with the libdems

This is mainly bad for the Cons.

The swing votes will come from the Conservative camp.

The Labour camp dont have the IQ to contemplate what switching vote entails.

mbga9pgf

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I don't mind paying higher taxes for a visibly better society, like those of Scandinavian countries.

What, the ones that have all that oil you mean and record low population density to share the profits?

Charterhouse

mbga9pgf wrote: »

This is mainly bad for the Cons.

The swing votes will come from the Conservative camp.

The Labour camp dont have the IQ to contemplate what switching vote entails.

I think this is 100% untrue. Brown was awful last night, he looked tired, bloated and a little undead. He actually looked like he'd had a stroke. I suspect the Libs will benefit from both sides but more from Labour.

ninky_2

Generali wrote: »

There's the 'Lib' part of the party (which kinda seems to be in the ascendancy) who would be much more comfortable in Government with a modern Conservative Party.

.

i disagree. there's nothing liberal about the (modern?) conservative party.

immigration? they want caps. and their leader still finds it necessary to bring up the skin colour of someone he was talking to when discussing immigration (don't we have white immigrants dave?)
gay rights? no matter what they argue have you seen the voting record?
hereditary peerages? yes please say the tories.

liberal my !!!!.

ninky_2

is it cameron? is it conservative? not it's c---!

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics-news/election/election-2010-news/2010/04/16/election-2010-itv-mistakenly-broadcasts-message-calling-david-cameron-the-c-word-86908-22190243/

:rotfl:

PrivatisetheNHSnow

the viewers obviously haven't read their taxes policies...