Guess who is not voting Lib Dem next election

Emy1501

kennyboy66 wrote: »

If things go badly every leaflet Labour put out will have "vote Lib Dem, get Tory".

The problem for the Lib-Dems is that there is not much defence against that accusation.

The further problem is that the Lib Dem activists are normally to the far left of their party - it will be struggle to motivate them to support a Tory government.

And what if things go well? What choice did Nick Clegg have? Labour made it clear they were not interested in a deal. Maybe Labour supporter and Lib Dem supporters to the left need to take a look at Labour.

If the Tories had been left to govern as a minority party the government would have collapsed within 6 months with probably a run on the pound etc. The the Lib Dems would have been wiped out as irrelevant as whats the point of voting for them if they will only get into bed with Labour as might as well vote Labour.

The reality is getting some of your policies in is better than none and the Tories offered them a better deal than Labour did.

The Lib Dems need to show that they can strike a deal in the best interest of their supporters who ever that deal is with if they really want to show that coalition governments is the way forward.

The Lib Dems never had a chance of winning the election its something some of their supporters do not seem to understand.

chucky

tomstickland wrote: »

A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Lib Dem part of the coalition. It's then up to the Lib Dems to pull the policy that the coalition follows in the direction of the voters who they represent.

i don 't see this because for the general election, i doubt many were expecting the coalition to be reality.

why vote for the Lib Dems (or any party) if they're going to change their strategy to suit their political future but not what you voted for.

it's like voting for the Lib Dems, the next day they sack Clegg and put Gordon Brown in charge. you'd be happy because you were voting for the Lib Dem party.

ninky_2

chucky wrote: »

why vote for the Lib Dems (or any party) if they're going to change their strategy to suit their political future but not what you voted for.

well quite. i don't see how agreeing to abstain on a vote on nuclear power stations is pushing policy in the direction they laid out in their manifesto.

convenient political expediency. you can only be switzerland for so long before it looks like you're actually supporting the enemy.

chucky

hallmark wrote: »

I have to disagree strongly with that...

Even in his moment of resignation (the first one) he used it as an oppurtunity to lauch one last desparate attempt to cling on to power. An attempt cooked up by the despicable Mandelson & Campbell at that.

Then when it failed, he finally resigned fully the next day, shortly before he would have been forcibly ejected!

What on earth was dignified about any of that?

so your solution was for him to resign and leave the country without a prime minister.

i don't really think you understand how things work.

Gordon Brown has gone, let it go, you're hatred for all things Gordon or Labour should be let go... it's stopping you thinking straight...

LauraW10

Top Liberal Democrats open rift over coalition with Conservatives • Why I refused to back deal - Charles Kennedy
• Former leader fuels doubts over pact

The depth of division among Liberal Democrats over Nick Clegg's coalition deal with the Tories bursts into the open today as former party leader Charles Kennedy reveals that he refused to vote for the deal.

In a heartfelt article for today's Observer, Kennedy writes that he could not bring himself to back Clegg in the crucial, behind-closed-doors meeting of Lib Dem MPs last Tuesday night. He feared the move to a formal coalition with the Tories could wreck for ever plans for a progressive centre-left alliance in British politics.Other party grandees, including former leaders Menzies Campbell, Paddy Ashdown and David Steel, also had profound doubts. But in the end Ashdown and Campbell voted in favour. Steel, who could not be present at the meeting, authorised Kennedy to express their shared views about the dangers of the deal.

Kennedy, the Lib Dem leader from 1999 to 2006 and still a highly popular figure, addressed the packed meeting – laying out the concerns – before abstaining. In his article today he makes clear his fears that the Lib Dems could be swallowed up by the Tories.

Also writing for this paper, Steel tells how he attended a meeting of his local party where activists were furious. "I was so proud of them because the questions, doubts and anxieties were almost all ones I shared. We all had an instinctive horror of collaboration with the enemy."

Grassroots Lib Dems gather in Birmingham today for a special conference during which many will lay down what they consider the "red lines" their party must not cross. The meeting is expected to see hostile motions tabled on tuition fees, Iran, VAT and inequality. The Lib Dems have already ditched their manifesto pledge to phase out tuition fees.
Tensions are bound to emerge on international affairs. The Lib Dems have long complained of a "subservient" relationship to the US and promised not to attack Iran. However, in his first days as foreign secretary, William Hague issued a warning to Iran over its nuclear programme.
One group, the Social Liberal Forum, has also laid down a motion calling on the hierarchy to ensure policies to close the income gap between the best- and worst-off. Others warned that moves to raise VAT would cause uproar.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/16/liberal-democrats-rift-coalition-conservatives

ash28

LauraW10 wrote: »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/16/liberal-democrats-rift-coalition-conservatives

It'll be interesting to see how it all pans out.

I haven't read the articles, just your extracts.

I really hope the coalition works and the LibDems are able to control some of the harsher policies that may be proposed.

I do fear for the LibDems in all of this, it could seriously damage them as a party regardless of the success or failure of the coalition.

Didn't Charles Kennedy once say "Labour are our adversaries, the Conservatives are our enemies"

apt

ninky wrote: »

well quite. i don't see how agreeing to abstain on a vote on nuclear power stations is pushing policy in the direction they laid out in their manifesto.

convenient political expediency. you can only be switzerland for so long before it looks like you're actually supporting the enemy.

Unfortunately both Conservatives and Labour are in favour of nuclear power, so it is difficult to see what Lib Dem votes could do in these circumstances. But if they manage to stick to the agreement that there will be no additional subsidies for new nuclear power stations (unlike the absolute fortune that has been taken from taxpayers and Electricity consumers by Labour and Conservative governments) then that should stop the plans in their tracks.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

The Labour party is claiming a record-breaking surge in its membership since the election amid signs that disgruntled Liberal Democrats are flocking to the party.


Almost 10,000 people have joined the party since the close of the polls. The post-election boost represents a 6% rise in its overall membership, after years of dwindling numbers willing to commit to the party.


Some of the new members claim they have signed up as protest at the decision of the Liberal Democrats to join the Conservatives in a coalition. But despite the unease of its own activists the Liberal Democrats are also boasting hundreds of new members in the last week.


The sharpest rise in new Labour members came after details emerged of the coalition agreement. During the course of yesterday alone, as Nick Clegg and David Cameron held their joint press conference, 4,211 joined Labour.

"Unprecedented numbers of people joining the Labour Party. 1 every 15 seconds at the moment," the party's Twitterfeed said.

Every cloud and all that

Spartacus_Mills

chucky wrote: »

i don 't see this because for the general election, i doubt many were expecting the coalition to be reality.

why vote for the Lib Dems (or any party) if they're going to change their strategy to suit their political future but not what you voted for.

it's like voting for the Lib Dems, the next day they sack Clegg and put Gordon Brown in charge. you'd be happy because you were voting for the Lib Dem party.

It is nothing of the sort, as I see it. Nick made it crystal clear what the approach was going to be several times prior to the election and ruled nothing in and nothing out.

I do believe some people who urged people to vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out, such at the Guardian columnists, may feel more than a little aggrieved but that serves them right for taking our votes for granted.

The lib Dems were never going to win, the best thing for us would be a coalition to get many of our policies through. The resulting coalition and policy agreement is excellent AFAIC.

Spartacus_Mills

ninky wrote: »

well quite. i don't see how agreeing to abstain on a vote on nuclear power stations is pushing policy in the direction they laid out in their manifesto.

convenient political expediency. you can only be switzerland for so long before it looks like you're actually supporting the enemy.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Being in a coalition means compromises. The fact we have got alot of our policies through and you are just looking at one area of policy.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/election/article-1278779/Tories-ditched-policies-fast-listed-Cameron-wanted-bury-party-Right-say-Lib-Dems.html

The Nuclear deals will only go through if they are not subsidised. That puts a superb roadblock in place.

Up and down the country the Lib Dems work with other parties at a local level.