Will the Last Lib Dem please remember to switch off the lights

Murphy_Gooner

Fella wrote: »

Um, duh. She won three elections. She was very popular. One of the most popular PMs ever going by the only measure that counts i.e. the UK Public's vote.

Didnt Blair win 3 elections aswell? He didn't exactly end on great terms with the general public.

Dont forget that certain events like the Falklands helped massively on ensuring Thatcher stayed in power.


Getting back to the subject. I voted Lib Dem because at the time i liked what Clegg was saying. Especially with the student fees etc. But he went back on his word and went the other way. Too me he targeted the younger voters and give false promises.
I will never vote Lib Dem again and certainly would never vote Torries.
Labour all depends on what they put forward. But im not a massive fan of Milliband. Just dont think he comes across as someone who would be a good leader

PaulF81

Did it ever cross peoples minds that the majority of the country were actually really really happy that Maggie smashed the unions into dust and dragged our decrepit, unproductive manufacturing industry into the 20th Century? With computerised manufacturing, it was only going to ever end one way for the UKs manufacturing workforce focussing on low quality output. We were never going to be able to compete with the growing mass production of far higher quality on much lower wages we faced from importing from the developing world, Maggie realised this, as did most of the right (in more than one sense) thinking people in the UK.

The only people who had a major bee in their bonnets were the ones who were told the gravy train of state subsidized manufacture and production were over, 30% pay rises and a promise by hardened communist influence that if you stand shoulder to shoulder with your comrade, no matter what the cost to the state, we will succeed EVEN if it meant bringing the whole country and its reputation globally down with you. What have they done since, despite having 12 years of growth (created by the previous Tory government and wasted by Labour?) Putrefy in a word.

ntb1

I'll stick with voting for whoever I see as the best local candidate regardless of party politics. The sooner we get away from parties and party lines the more productive a government we will get. Locally the lib dem currently looks best. No info on the Tory and the lab looks a waste of space.

ruggedtoast

Fella wrote: »

I'm highly amused by the people who voted Libdem & were then angry that they went into Coalition with the Tories. If they wanted a left-wing Govt they should have voted Labour. Instead they voted for the party that could go into coalition with either of the others & that's exactly what they did. Never at any point did the Libdems suggest that they would not go into coaltion with the Tories.

No Lib Dem voter was expecting their vote to be helping David Cameron into No. 10.

N1AK

Murphy_Gooner wrote: »

Getting back to the subject. I voted Lib Dem because at the time i liked what Clegg was saying. Especially with the student fees etc. But he went back on his word and went the other way. Too me he targeted the younger voters and give false promises.

This is a widely shared view although I still don't fully understand it. A parties manifesto is what they would do if they win an election, which the Lib Dems didn't. If you take the view that a party may only join a coalition if they agree to fulfil all manifesto pledges then no coalition would ever be possible because too many pledges contradict.

So the Lib Dems had two choices:

• Join a coalition and negotiate for as many of their pledges as possible.
• Refuse to join any coalition

Obviously we saw the former. But imagine if they had refused. We'd either have a minority conservative government, which certainly wouldn't have dropped fees, or we'd have a second round of elections.

In a second round of elections voter support typically polarises to the major parties. Gordon Brown's support was getting weaker over time so the most likely result would be a conservative majority government. But regardless of whether it was Labour or the Conservatives that won we'd still have tuition fees.

N1AK

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No Lib Dem voter was expecting their vote to be helping David Cameron into No. 10.

Plenty would have rather had the conservatives in power than Labour. I voted Lib Dem (not that it matter where I live) and in order of preference I would have liked:
1/ A Liberal majority (and flying pigs)!
2/ A conservative majority
3/ A conservative/liberal coalition
4/ A liberal/labour coalition
5/ The queen to abolish parliamentary democracy
6/ A labour majority

Don't make sweeping statements about others when they obviously aren't true

IronWolf

I'd vote Lid Dem if it was a choice between them and Labour. Does that count?

michaels

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No Lib Dem voter was expecting their vote to be helping David Cameron into No. 10.

If the libdems announced in advance that they would only ever enter a coalition with Labour, it would do 2 things:
1) Reduce the number of votes they received as there are those who don't support the Tories but nonetheless would rather see a govt that was not labour.
2) Result in rather one sided coalition discussion with Labour - why should Labour make any concessions if they are the only game in town for the libdems?

In a libdem/labour coalition there would actually be higher tuition fees but they would be described as a tax rather than fees (which is what we have now by any other name) and there would have been no chance of the large increases in the tax free allowance as Labour believes in targetted 'benefits/tax credits' not tax cuts for low earners in general. There probably would have been a mansion tax which would have consisted of 3 more bands of council tax starting at 400k+ with some eye-wateringly high rates high up that would have gradually also been applied to the other 2 new bands.

pqrdef

michaels wrote: »

So the choices are no direct influence on policy as an opposition party or a limited influence as part of a coalition. It seems strange that so many lib dem supporters seemd to be totally unaware of what coalition govt would mean in reality?

Paddy Ashdown said the election result was a disaster for the LibDems and he was right.

But they had to try the coalition. Otherwise people just decide that a vote for the LibDems is a vote for a hung Parliament is a vote for another election in 6 months, so what's the point.

However, if the junior partner in a coalition can't exercise a more effective veto, we can only conclude that there's no role for a third party and we're stuck with a two-party system.

The best thing the LibDems could do now would be to merge with Labour and change it from within. God knows Labour needs somebody to give it some sense of direction and purpose.

Jennifer_Jane

N1AK wrote: »

This is a widely shared view although I still don't fully understand it. A parties manifesto is what they would do if they win an election, which the Lib Dems didn't. If you take the view that a party may only join a coalition if they agree to fulfil all manifesto pledges then no coalition would ever be possible because too many pledges contradict.


So the Lib Dems had two choices:

• Join a coalition and negotiate for as many of their pledges as possible.
• Refuse to join any coalition

Obviously we saw the former. But imagine if they had refused. We'd either have a minority conservative government, which certainly wouldn't have dropped fees, or we'd have a second round of elections.

In a second round of elections voter support typically polarises to the major parties. Gordon Brown's support was getting weaker over time so the most likely result would be a conservative majority government. But regardless of whether it was Labour or the Conservatives that won we'd still have tuition fees.

Yes. I find it so depressing that despite having been told this by Clegg time and again, LibDems haven't understood this.