Why the lib-dems are shit
- Thread starter butchersapron
- Start date
sihhi
Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered
1931-1940 when it split the Labour Party into two, for a while the Liberals were in coalition too
then 1940-1945 as part of the war coalition
glenquagmire
Rightwing NuLab apologist
We had a Lab-Con coalition running Hackney Council not that long ago.
Combustible
Well-Known Member
1931-1945 kind of. Although from 1931-1940 it was only a minority of Labour MPs (led by the previous PM Ramsay Macdonald) who supported the government and split to form National Labour.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Thinking about this, he has to deal with the Tories really in this case. He is campaigning on a platform of PR, he can't then get into bed with the least popular party to form a government.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
A sample of 2, 200 across how many seats? Doesn't sound awfully thorough.
paulhackett
voiced by strother martin
I probably misunderstood but he said he wouldn't support labour if they came third but didn't exclude supporting them if they came 2nd? Isn't there something about not supporting Brown in any scenario? All of which goes against the 'not discussing the outcome' stance of last week?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why not? That's exactly what the sort of coalition building that PR brings is all about. It would be the perfect example of how it would work.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
He contradicted himself numerous times in just that 5 minute snippet on possible outcomes. Today he was asked what if labour were 2nd in the popular vote but the largest party and he refused to answer on the grounds that speculation was not helpful. The nerve of the bloke.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
115.
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
Paddy Pantsdown said it would be unthinkable but I reckon clegg would just be all 'fuck you old man, I'm the man in the driving seat' if it came to it.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
No he doesn't. He could chose to do no deal at all. Theoretically, he could create a coalition of all the minor parties, if their votes were enough to give a parliamentary majority. A 'rainbow coalition': it has happened in other countries, even if it won't happen here this time.
He's clearly making the rules up as he goes along, mind. He says he won't prop up Labour if they're in front in seats but third in votes. Someone quite correctly pointed out that might mean dealing with them if they're second in votes. And it seems his party fixers have been briefing the media that he "only really meant if Brown was still leader". So it's OK to prop up a party that's third in votes if it has a new leader.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
so less than 20 per constituency? And yougov seem more than usually reliant on things like internet polling which are less reliable. And there won't be a uniform swing across those 115 seats - I think we might be looking at a sharp divide between the North and the Midlands/South Divide.
FWIW I think Labour are being excessively complacent about what this could mean for them - strong LD showing might peel them down to the core, and the Tory core is much stronger.
FWIW I think Labour are being excessively complacent about what this could mean for them - strong LD showing might peel them down to the core, and the Tory core is much stronger.
articul8
Dishonest sociopath
he's still got to be careful that the steering wheel doesn't just come off in his hands whilst the car splits down the middle.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Third party votes help Labour. A strong vote for the Lib Dems is their best hope of getting the most seats, hence all the recent fuss over the possibility that Labour will come third in votes and first in seats. That is only possible if the Lib Dems do very well.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Well it's an improvemnt on the 13 per seat that the previous marginal polls were based on...still a lot of gap filling in being done though. I'm sure Then again, this is the same basis as for the national polls as well.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Which is why I want them to get loads of votes. Aren't you all just slightly bored of the usual election results? Don't you crave something a bit more interesting?
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
You aren't going to get anything more interesting. You're going to get a LibLab pact or a LibCon pact. Or a minority government.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
So is representative democracy.
Idaho
blah blah blah
Quite so. But you can't hoover the carpet until you have moved the elephant off it.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
And you'd hoover a carpet that's had an elephant living on it for over 200 years?
Idaho
blah blah blah
Alright - then you can't throw the fucking carpet out until you get the elephant off it. The metaphor remains unscathed.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Have you measured the door frame?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
You're not hoovering the carpet - you're hoovering the elephant.
Idaho
blah blah blah
And you're just sat on the sofa telling everyone both that nothing can change, and everything should change.
dennisr
the acceptable face
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I dealt with this idiocy earlier in the day. 3 times now in a handful of days that i've had to point out to you that you your mad idea that i support a revolution or nothing position is nonsense - i'm sure you'll do it again. Bordering on dishonesty though.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Why i'm being characterised as having an outside and against the elephant position i don't know - my position is that we're inevitably inside and against the elephant.
danny la rouge
More like *fanny* la rouge!
Can we change the metaphor now? I like elephants; I don't want to be against elephants.
Similar threads
