danny la rouge
I have a cheese grater in the dishwasher.
Hence "clarification".BBC election blog said:
urban Lib Dem voters! What do you think of what's going on?
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
free spirit
more tea vicar?
he did well in the first 2 debates, but was basically just repeating himself, and then fluffed it badly in the last 10 days or so, with the result that we've ended up with less mp's than we started with in the middle of the worst recession in 2 generations, and with a pretty shit tory party as rivals.
I was never particularly impressed with him and thought the lib dems should have been doing much much better in the polls before the election kicked off. He kind of surprised me in the first debate, but then basically did what I expected after it and gradually fucked it up.
I'm not saying he needs the boot now, far from it, but if he did push his luck too far, I doubt many would worry too much about sticking the knife in if it needed doing.
In 1997, LibDems voted tactically against Major's Tories. Blair sought to reward them with some power in government, and realign the left. Brown ended the dream, and its LibDem architect, Paddy Ashdown was reduced in standing. He resigned his leadership as a result. Actually, the Labour party does owe LibDems. A debt that it has never paid.
LibDems knew before this election that their party needed a good percentage vote and a moral victory, as well as seats, in order to fight for its policies in a hung parliament. Labour was never going to give them a free ride. Had LibDems done what they did in 1997, but this time actually created a Labour majority - which was quite possible - then Labour would have shut the Liberals out. Its also true that in several polls during the election campaign, the LibDems were placed first with nearly 50% of the vote - when the question was something like "if the LibDems had an equal chance of winning....." For Liberals, there was always the chance of a massive upset in British politics.
That is not the position that Labour voters were in. Labour needed to reduce the Tories seat tally as best it could while its vote slumped. Vote Labour in Lab/Tory marginals or Liberal in Lib/Tory marginals. Its not rocket science.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
GarfieldLeChat
fucking awesome but wrong
or indeed to blame others exercsing their right to choose a party they want to vote for cos the one you want didn't win.....
which is all these threads are about...
wah wah wah the people i voted for didn't win so it must be someones fault wah wah wah...
instead of the spineless labour party and the witless tory party offered nothing significant or sufficient enough to the electorate which prevents them gaining an outright majority.
rather than all this crowing and blame culture why not face facts that the credit worthiness of the country is irrelevant if we the people who live on this island cannot decide as a nation what shape we'd like our political structure.
Clearly we need reform and quickly if we're not to end up in a Greek like situation, however it's clearly less of a priority for most people than sorting out how we are governed hence we're in the situation we are.
No amount of hand wringing embittered recriminations against people exercising their democratic right to vote for whoever they chose will change the fact that the population of this country is undecided.
Perhaps its time the parties engaged the electorate again so that this situation doesn't occur again...
free spirit
more tea vicar?
If the lib dems do end up going with the tories, IMO the memory of being shafted by labour in 1997 after it became clear what the size of their majority was is likely to be a major factor in the lib dems thinking IMO.
It's also probably a good part of the reason why the lib dems would want brown's head in exchange for any deal.
what goes around comes around and all that.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Walpole
But remember Robert Walpole - the FIRST and probably MOST CORRUPT Prime Minister (In office 1721-1742) Whigg (Old Liberal!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole
But remember Robert Walpole - the FIRST and probably MOST CORRUPT Prime Minister (In office 1721-1742) Whigg (Old Liberal!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Walpole
Attachments
stupid kid
...
Labour back in the game as Brown prepares to stand down!
free spirit
more tea vicar?
*does the I told everyone so dance*
magneze
🎧
Do read the thread. This has been covered about 42 times. They'd bring in the nationalists.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
of course there is.
labour + lib dem + sdlp + alliance = 319 seats in coalition
plaid + SNP + Green = 10 seats either in coalition, or mostly voting with the government on case by case basis, and abstaining or voting in favour in queens speech.
dup + independent = probably voting on case by case basis and abstaining on queens speech
sien fein = 5 abstaining on everything.
vs Tory at 306
I have read the thread. Not that I need to to hold an informed opinion. There is no majority in parliament for a progressive coallition. Coallition partners are as much rivals as allies. The SNP will show no good grace towards the Labour leadership. Labour will end up more unpopular than it already is. Why would LibDems want to shackle themselves to a corpse?
free spirit
more tea vicar?
brown is the corpse, not the entire labour party.
snp, plaid and green will play ball providing they get what they want to some extent, which isn't that far removed from lib/lab policy anyway, because the know the alternative is tory and they know it.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
also, we only need plaid and green to vote with us to be a majority
or lib/lab+ snp
or lib/lab + green & plaid abstaining
etc.
basically with some proper negotiations, between the parties, it shouldn't be a problem, and is probably going to be less problematic than a lib / con coalition where 2/3 of each party hate the others guts and will constantly be rebelling.
or lib/lab+ snp
or lib/lab + green & plaid abstaining
etc.
basically with some proper negotiations, between the parties, it shouldn't be a problem, and is probably going to be less problematic than a lib / con coalition where 2/3 of each party hate the others guts and will constantly be rebelling.
That's not strictly true. The SNP is in opposition to Labour in Scotland and would be arguing from 2 seperate points of view, depending upon which capital they were speaking from. Both points of view will be mouthed by Alex Salmond, who, as we all know, is the only person allowed to make decisions in the SNP.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that the SNP would take every opportunity to fuck Labour from inside the tent. They have no vested interest in doing well in Westminster. They have every vested interest in winning for Scotland at England's expense. The SNP are not serious coallition partners. They should not be added to the maths. Nor should the Unionists.
Which is a long-winded way of saying that the SNP would take every opportunity to fuck Labour from inside the tent. They have no vested interest in doing well in Westminster. They have every vested interest in winning for Scotland at England's expense. The SNP are not serious coallition partners. They should not be added to the maths. Nor should the Unionists.
fakeplasticgirl
Keirleader
oh my god! maybe a lib/lab/rainbow coalition *is* possible... i'm getting excited!
either that or i've been reading too many blogs, because 'i'm an under-employed fat fucking loser with nothing better to do with my time than sit in my bedroom like a fat space hopper in a tracksuit reading inconsequential, un-spellchecked shit, fabricated by other fat fucking losers'
either that or i've been reading too many blogs, because 'i'm an under-employed fat fucking loser with nothing better to do with my time than sit in my bedroom like a fat space hopper in a tracksuit reading inconsequential, un-spellchecked shit, fabricated by other fat fucking losers'
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Many months ago, in fact back in 1997.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Sort of but not quite, they had a commitment to a commission to investigate alternative form of electing the commons and then a referendum on the reports of that commission, rather than a commitment to AV. The commission recommended AV+ but blair ignored them and it was buried until a few months ago.
free spirit
more tea vicar?
but if they got the funding guarantees for scotland and wales they're after, then they'll be happy enough to at least stay out of the way if not actively support the government. Especially when the alternative is the tories, who'd shit all over wales and scotland when the cuts came as they have no interest there at all.
AV+ looks like an interesting proposal, I'll have to look into it more.
claphamboy
The wheels on the bus go round and round....
Dianne Abbot, John Reid & David Blunkett have all spoken out against a Lib/Lab deal. 
Similar threads
- Poll
