Printable version of thread

Posted by: Qassändra 16th July 2015, 07:09 PM

PREDICTION: two pages in total this year

(I take schadenfreude where I can get it these days)

Posted by: popchartfreak 16th July 2015, 07:14 PM

bit early for that yet. I'm sure they'll have policies the Labour party can borrow again...

Posted by: Danny 16th July 2015, 07:18 PM

I can actually see a mini-revival for them in the South West, although the Guardianistas are off-limits for the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Silas 16th July 2015, 08:11 PM

They are barely even the 4th party of British politics these days. In 10 months time they'll be demoted one rung further to the 5th party of Scottish politics behind the Greens.

They have a long way back from this wipe out, I honestly don't think they'll be the same force they were ever again. I can think of 10 seats they won't be getting back as a direct result of entering into the coalition, never mind what they did while they were in it.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 16th July 2015, 08:21 PM

If there's a minor split in the Labour Party after the leadership election, then we might see a few Labourites either joining the Lib Dems, or end up "doing a Gang of Four" and starting a new party before merging with the Lib Dems. Very unlikely, but you never know.

Posted by: richie 17th July 2015, 08:07 AM

Tim Farron is the right man to start again and I think people will soon start to realise that the coalition was somewhat good-tempered compared to the Tories on their own.

Just don't expect any branch of the media to sing their praises - but no change there.

Posted by: Soy Adrián 17th July 2015, 12:24 PM

I think people will begin to give them a little more respect for that, but I'm not sure it will translate into votes anywhere other than their old SW heartlands where they came a solid second this time. It'll take another generation before they can recover fully, if at all.

Posted by: Common Sense 17th July 2015, 02:47 PM

How many seats do any of you think they'll get in 2020? Go on have a guess. Mo need for another thread really. I'll say 12, picking up those few extra in the SW.

Posted by: popchartfreak 17th July 2015, 11:20 PM

nothing in politics is predictable and forever, it only takes one good man or woman to lead and inspire - or the reverse.

There was a time when there was no Labour Party and there was a Liberal Party.

In Scotland there is the SNP and the anti-SNP which is currently split. They have a popular leader (the SNP) and 5 years ago they didn't so much.

Every party has a sell-by date, it's in the nature of democracy and voter grumpiness. No-one lives forever.

Predicting seats for the Libdems in the next parliament? More than they currently have...

Posted by: Brett-Butler 19th July 2015, 10:37 AM

Oh, for God's sake http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33580567 (and others), yes, you can be the leader of the Liberal Democrats and a Christian. The greatest leader that the Liberal Democrats ever had and ever will have, Charles Kennedy, was a devout Catholic, for heaven's sake. You'd think there's some people who won't be happy until all Christian MPs have someone ringing a bell, shouting "unclean" every time they're about to speak.

Sorry, that piece has riled me up a bit more than I expected.

Posted by: Qassändra 19th July 2015, 12:12 PM

Of course you can be a Christian and a leader. I'm not really especially comfortable with an evangelical being leader though. Fair play to him that he recognises liberalism is about not shoving your views on others, but I'm not really sure how compatible that is with evangelicism anyway.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 19th July 2015, 12:29 PM

I wouldn't describe him as an evangelical - he's a member of the CofE, a church where even a belief in God is optional. (Unless of course, he personally describes himself as evangelical)

Posted by: richie 20th July 2015, 08:30 AM

Don't expect the SNP bubble to last forever up here - wouldn't be surprised if the Lib Dems win a few back in the North of Scotland. Obviously not if Danny Alexander stands though.

Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd July 2016, 07:45 PM

Thought it time to resurrect this given they are the only english party doing anything constructive about brexit right now, along with the snp...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/02/tim-farron-eu-nationals-in-uk-lib-dems?CMP=share_btn_tw

Posted by: Rooney 3rd July 2016, 07:52 PM

No surprise really, like others said a year ago, the Lib Dems will rise again. Doing something about the EU gets people to see them again, and as 48% of the country were pro-EU it certainly doesn't harm their PR at all. They raise a good point because it's true.

Posted by: Qassändra 3rd July 2016, 08:02 PM

The main problem they've got is that Tim Farron's too useless to get them any reliable coverage. Like a crap local vicar.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd July 2016, 08:02 PM

Agreed. When they announced shortly after the result that they would remain committed to EU membership, I thought it was a bold move, but one that might work. Focussing on EU nationals currently living here is all part of the same strategy. It can't even be dismissed as opportunism, because it is totally consistent with Lib Dem (and predecessor parties) policy for as long as I can remember.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd July 2016, 08:06 PM

He can't force the television news programmes to cover his speeches or force current affairs programmes to include a Lib Dem on their panel. The party's status as the fourth largest in the HoC means that he only rarely gets to speak at PMQs, so that is another potential means of getting coverage gone. The broadcast media has never liked having to give coverage to a third party; now they are trying to go back to the days when they didn't need to bother.

Posted by: popchartfreak 3rd July 2016, 08:07 PM

Ha. As opposed to a shambling rambling oap or a cold hearted dominatrix.

I'll take the vicar ta

Posted by: Qassändra 3rd July 2016, 08:09 PM

He can't force them to, which is why he needs to get creative - that's leadership.

Posted by: Qassändra 3rd July 2016, 08:09 PM

Britain will take the cold hearted dominatrix.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd July 2016, 08:17 PM

Which is what he is doing on the EU.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 3rd July 2016, 08:26 PM

With the Lib Dems, it seems to me that they've done well when they can have a flagship "contrary policy" that helps them to gain protest votes against the incumbent government. In 2005 it was their opposition to the Iraq War (and to a lesser extent ID cards, if I recall correctly), and in 2010 it was tuition fees. They lost lots of ground in 2015 because they could no longer be seen as a "protest vote" to being in coalition with the Conservatives, so if my theory is correct, their strident pro-EU stance could see them start to regain the ground that they lost last year, perhaps regaining the Remainers who ditched them last year.

As for Tim Farron as leader, I've liked what I've seen of him so far, although admittedly what I've seen of him has been his Twitter account, his appearance on HIGNFY, and seeing him ask 1 question at PMQs because I was was watching it whilst procrastinating from studying. At least that's better than the open hostility he received when he was running.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 3rd July 2016, 08:39 PM

To be fair to Tim Farron (he doesn't get called upon during PMQs because of some weird John Bercow vendetta or something), he was the only politician who questioned the disgraceful, racist and divisive Tory campaign against Sadiq Kahn for London mayor? Well Corbyn was never going to bother was he?

Posted by: popchartfreak 4th July 2016, 12:01 PM

Tim Farron is a man of principle. Most libdems are people are principle. If it were all about being in power they would be busy splitting apart the Labour or Tory parties, because in their case it HAS to be about power: keeping the other lot out as they would make more of a hash of it (as each would see it). Turns out they are both as useless as each other when in power, when it comes to avoiding big disasters. On smaller policies, labour has a social conscience, tories have no conscience.

He was also the only party leader who was as livid as I was about the pathetic referendum campaign and the predictable catastrophic result (that's catastrophic for everyone, not just the UK).

Posted by: Qassändra 4th July 2016, 12:12 PM

Uh...a fair few in Labour had something to say about it!

Posted by: Doctor Blind 4th July 2016, 05:35 PM

I meant to raise it directly during PMQs, sorry I didn't make myself very clear there.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 7th December 2016, 10:50 AM

Just a few weeks after Labour were fined for expense irregularities, it is now the Lib Dems that have come under the firing line, receiving a £20,000 fine for failing to declare nearly £200k worth of expenses for their 2015 campaign, as well as being referred to the police to see if http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lib-dems-slapped-maximum-20000-9407553 has been evident.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th January 2017, 02:03 PM

The Lib Dems have started 2017 as they ended 2016 by continuing to make gains in local by-elections. That included an extraordinary win last night in Sunderland. When the seat in question was contested last May the Lib Dems got a miserable 90 votes (to finish fourth) while Labour won with over 1,200 votes. Last night the Lid Dems won the seat very easily having done pretty badly there even in pre-coalition days.

Meanwhile, in Three Rivers, they gained a seat from the Tories (albeit one they have won before). The big significance of this win is that they now have a majority on the council.

Posted by: popchartfreak 13th January 2017, 09:10 PM

Yes, this one is flopping about Twitter with the usual "Coalition Traitor" comments about austerity - conveniently forgetting the Libdems had 2 choices: to go with a party who were advocating austerity but who had just been kicked out of a majority government having failed miserably in their economic performances and policies leading up to the banking crisis, or else go with a party with slightly more seats who were advocating austerity but who had just been supporting every economic policy and not questioning as an Opposition should be the kicked out of a majority government which failed miserably in it's economic performances and policies leading up to the banking crisis.

As I tried to explain to my Momentum-joining New Labour-hating Brexit-supporting otherwise sane-friend - (he was an activist for New Labour, tried to stand as a London Councillor but wasnt selected due to local politics, and didn't support Brexit and didn't vote for Corbyn) there is some sort of mass-hysteria going on in the Labour Party who singularly fail to realise that People outside the party think Corbyn is useless. That people have come to realise they were lied to about Brexit. That party democracy is something Corbyn used to believe was a good thing, till he became leader and decided Labour Party policy was to be dictated by him and a few cronies and the £3 newbies.

Libdems are the party of opposition to this terrible government in England. There is no other sane opposition for sane people to vote for.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd February 2017, 06:05 PM

Another extraordinary win for the Lib Dems in a local by-election yesterday, this time in Rotherham. In what had generally been a rock solid Labour seat (although UKIP have come close a couple times and even won one seat in a triple vacancy last year), the Lib Dem candidate won with two-thirds of the vote. In most recent contests, the Lib Dems hadn't even bothered to put up a candidate.

Posted by: Steve201 3rd February 2017, 10:38 PM

British politics is increasingly turning into a leave vs remain party political country where there may only be room for 2 of the
Tories, UKIP, Labour & Lib Dems!

Posted by: Brett-Butler 3rd February 2017, 10:53 PM

It's an interesting point, but I think the leave/remain political divide will only last up until the point that Britian actually leaves the EU. As I've mentioned before, UKIP's future fortunes post-Brexit will rely on whether it can evolve into a right-wing populist party now that its raison d'etre has been removed (although I'm not sure Ukippers would know what raison d'etre means anyway), and I believe the upcoming Stoke by-election will be the litmus test to that. As for the Lib Dems, although they are definitely pro-EU, once it's clear that they cannot reverse Article 50, the EU stuff won't be their key touchstone policy, although by that stage they'll have built up a solid base from disfranchised ex-members from other parties that it wouldn't matter anyway. So I think at least 3 of them will still have a future.

Posted by: popchartfreak 18th September 2017, 06:26 AM

a week is a long time in politics...

turns out UKIP didnt make it to the end of 2017 as a relevant party now the Tories have become UKIP....

My real reason for posting though is its Libdem conference time and I am constantly amused by the text versions of rolling news television. Apparently the conference will be addressed by servings cable. Could have been worse I suppose...

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 18th September 2017, 06:40 AM

Yay it's conference season!! Does someone have the bingo cards ready?

The Tory lot are having theirs directly across the road from work.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st December 2017, 10:00 AM

An interesting set of local council by-elections last night. Of course, theses should always come with a warning that no conclusions can be drawn from one set of results.

There were just four contests with the Tories, Labour, Lib Dems and UKIP defending one each. The Lib Dems won all four. For the sake of accuracy, one of them (in Maidstone) has been won by the Lib Dems (and predecessor parties) in almost every local election since 1979, The place up for grabs yesterday had been won by the Tories two years ago with a majority of just 25. The significant point is that the Lib Dems now replace the Tories as the largest group on the council.

Perhaps more interesting is the result in Gosport (Hampshire). Since the ward was created in 2002, the Lib Dems have never put up a candidate, They did stand in yesterday's by-election and won with 58% of the vote.

The victory in Torridge (Devon) is a curious one. The three-seat ward was last contested in 2015 with an independent, the Tories and UKIP each winning one seat. Split wards in all-up elections happen fairly frequently, but a three-way split is very unusual. Once again, the Lib Dems didn't even have a candidate in that election.

The win in Tandridge (Surrey) was in a ward that has seen close Tory / Lib Dem contests in most elections since 2006.

Posted by: vidcapper 1st December 2017, 10:42 AM

They must be kicking themselves for not contesting it before!

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st December 2017, 01:00 PM

sounds like Tory heartland is pissed off with them for some reason.......

That shines a little light in to the dark despair that is 2017!

Posted by: Soy Adrián 1st December 2017, 02:45 PM

My knowledge of the SDP, the Alliance and the Lib Dems up to 1997 isn't strong enough to answer this, but for anyone whose is - is the point the party's at now comparable to any particular time then? It seems that they're doing usefully in by-elections and may well make moderate gains in strong areas in the Locals in May, but are a good few years off showing any signs of turning around their awful position in Westminster.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st December 2017, 04:57 PM

Shortly after the SDP and Liberal party merged, the Lib Dems (or Social and Liberal Democrats as they were briefly known) were regularly scoring only 2-3% in opinion polls. Paddy Ashdown liked to joke later that they were within the margin of error of zero.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 1st December 2017, 05:05 PM

How do those wins compare performances in other local by-elections for the Lib Dems in the past few months? If it's indicative of a pattern of increasing support of the Lib Dems, then that's a positive sign from them. I believe that the Lib Dem strategy has been to concentrate on building its base on a local, council level in the hopes of building that into seats in those areas in parliament (although if I've got that wrong, please correct me), so it would be positive for them.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st December 2017, 05:17 PM

Overall local by-election results have been reasonably encouraging for the Lib Dems. Even in areas where thire support had almost disappeared it has been starting to creep up again. Most of the gains have been in the seats they have lost since 2010 but there have been a few exceptions (as well as the weird Gosport result this week). Of course there is still along way to go to get back to where they were ten years ago.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 18th April 2018, 08:00 PM

not current, but 6 years ago this MP said something very important and nobody listened. She lost her job shortly afterwards.

The policy comments were about something pushed by Porky Cameron & carried out by T. May-Not.

https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2013/jul/12/sarah-teather-angry-voices-immigration

Posted by: Brett-Butler 18th April 2018, 08:06 PM

Sarah Teather gave a talk at my church last year, which I'm sad I wasn't able to get to. She's been involved heavily in a Catholic refugee agency since she stood down as an MP, I believe.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 19th April 2018, 07:28 PM

Good for her, a good person with principles.

Sadly, Nick Clegg, also a former Libdem, has decided instead to interview the little-known and publicity-shy far-right shrinking violet Nigel Forage as his post-MP contribution. I know which one I admire the most...

Posted by: Doctor Blind 16th July 2018, 11:57 PM

Instead of voting against, and defeating the government this evening, Tim Farron - former Liberal Democrat leader - was instead hosting some talk about the demise of liberalism which was apparently more important than the vote!

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th July 2018, 07:11 AM

Do you know whether he had made a pairing arrangement with a Tory?

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th July 2018, 11:44 AM

well, if we're going that route, spare a thought for the 3 Labour traitors who have been photographed with Tory hard brexiteers just before voting actually WITH the Tories, not even getting a hall pass for not voting (presumably). Got any kind words for Gobby 70's hangover Skinner, weasel Fields, and tosspot Hooeeeeeeugh?

Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th July 2018, 11:59 AM

Apparently Jo Swinson was paired (she has recently given birth) but no word on either Tim Farron or Vince Cable.

This is a complete embarrassment for the Liberal Democrats whose ONLY policy is literally to stop Brexit at any cost.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th July 2018, 02:08 PM

As I said in the other thread, the fact that over 30 MPs were missing suggests that they may well have made pairing arrangements.

Oh, and the Lib Dems have plenty of other policies as well.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th July 2018, 02:16 PM

OK, it looks like a combination of cock-up and a lack of communication between the Lib Dems and Labour.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/jul/17/lib-dems-cable-and-farron-attacked-for-missing-brexit-vote

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th July 2018, 07:14 PM

So Labour failed to assertively tell the Libdems what they were intending, that it would be close, and then used them as a scapegoat to disguise the fact that the 3 Labour MP's who voted with the government actually caused the loss rather than the 2 Libdems no-shows (which still wouldnt have won the vote).

Libdems repeat what I assumed to be the case as an excuse:

He added: “The Chequers plan is unworkable in any form and our aim is to stop Brexit. These amendments don’t make it any more workable, the whole thing is unworkable.”

And......Labour still blame the Libdems rather than get their own party in order (see 3 Labour MP's voting with gov). Bit of a recurring theme the last 8 years that.

So, Labour supporters stop whingeing about Libdems that hypothetically wouldnt have changed the result and whinge about your own MP's that did change the result.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th July 2018, 07:18 PM

Ah, so the Lib Dems are basically irrelevant then?

Just as I thought.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 17th July 2018, 07:20 PM

Now that I can't argue against.

Doesn't stop Labour trying it on though when it suits.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th July 2018, 07:45 PM

Not to mention the dozen or so Labour MPs who missed the vote.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 6th December 2018, 07:49 PM

In a surprising move (at least for someone like me who doesn't have much insight into the inner dealings of the Lib Dems), Stephen Lloyd has resigned the party whip https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46470414.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th December 2018, 07:54 PM

Inot sure why he has resigned the Whip. After all, plenty of Tory MPs are expected to vote against the party without resigning the Whip. Corbyn would have been out on his ear 30 years ago if he had taken the same stance.

His original pledge was a little odd although I suspect he felt it was the only way to win the seat back. I wonder how bad the deal would have needed to be for him to decide that he could safely backtrack.

Posted by: December's Dong 6th December 2018, 08:43 PM

Why is resigning the whip even a thing? I vote Labour. If my MP went over to the Tories after I voted for Labour, I would be FUUUUMING. It is anti democratic.

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th December 2018, 09:22 PM

The system still works on the assumption that you vote for a candidate, not a party. I think it was only in the 1970s that the party names were added to the ballot paper. In this case, the MP in question isn't leaving the party - he's just left the parliamentary group. He may, of course, choose to rejoin later.

Posted by: December's Dong 6th December 2018, 10:05 PM

I'd vote for a dead cat over a Tory. This whole voting for an MP nonsense is just that - nonsense. We are voting for the party.

Posted by: Christmasteve201 6th December 2018, 11:03 PM

Didn't realise it wasn't until the 1970s that the party names were put on, Wild that!

Posted by: vidsanta 7th December 2018, 06:01 AM

Well, well - we've finally found something to agree on!

Posted by: vidsanta 7th December 2018, 06:10 AM

That does have the advantage of voters having to look up *something* about a candidate before voting.



Which is unfortunately why donkeys wearing the right colour rosette keep getting elected. To counter this we *need* STV!

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th March 2019, 09:14 PM

Vince Cable has announced that, unless there is a general election, he will step down as leader in May.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 14th March 2019, 09:44 PM

I'm surprised that she would allow him to do that whilst he is resigning. What does Philip think?

Posted by: Brett-Butler 14th March 2019, 09:51 PM

Hilarious double entendres aside, who do the Lib Dems have in their narrow pool of 9 other potentials (excluding Tim Farron & that guy who resigned the whip) who could realistically take over and help breathe new life into the party? I'm assuming that Jo Swinson would be the logical option, but given she ruled out the possibility when Vince Cable was elected, she may not put her hat into the ring again.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th March 2019, 09:56 PM

Assuming there isn’t a candidate from outside parliament, I think the main contenders would be Jo Swinson and Layla Moran.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 15th March 2019, 06:55 PM

Former Liberal Democrat leader Lord Steel has been suspended from the party after admitting that he knew Cyril Smith was a sexual abuser as far back as 1979, when he was leader of the Liberal Party, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-47573243.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 16th March 2019, 02:52 PM

Errr not quite correct. He SUSPECTED Smith was guilty of abuse dating back to Smith's pre-Labour Party career, but the police didn't pursue the case. Can one throw someone out of a political party over unproven accusations? Now, if Steele is found to have quashed evidence that could have led to a prosecution then that is an entirely different kettle of fish.

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd March 2019, 08:36 PM

Layla Moran has posted a tweet about a messy relationship break-up that happened several years ago. I think we can take that as a sign that she will be standing for the leadership. It seems to be a pre-emotive strike before the story gets splashed over a tabloid.

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th May 2019, 05:30 PM

VInce Cable has formally announced his resignation as leader. His replacement will be announced on July 23. I think it is fair to assume that when he initially announced his intention to step down, he didn't expect the party to be where it is today.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th May 2019, 07:20 PM

Vince has been looking increasingly attractive the more we see of May and Corbyn and what they have done, or rather, not done.

The Tories deserve to implode for all they've done in splitting the nation as firmly as their own party, and The LibDems deserve to replace them as the main party after taking the stick for all the Tory and Labour policies that got them slagged off after the coalition after they'd done their best to temper as much as they could of what they were stuck with and the Tories took credit for the more popular policies that they grudgingly agreed to.

Fingers-crossed!

Posted by: Suedehead2 24th May 2019, 08:44 PM

Layla Moran has said she will not be standing. I suspect that will mean a contest between Jo Swinson and Ed Davey.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th May 2019, 09:23 PM

Ed Davey has officially announced that he is running for the leadership. I suspect Jo Swinson will be the only other candidate.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 30th May 2019, 09:43 PM

She's confirmed it on Question Time. It'll probably end up being Jo, seeing Ed Davey on BBC News this morning gives me the impression that he'd rub people up the wrong way.

Posted by: Botchia 30th May 2019, 09:44 PM

I really hope it's Jo!

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th May 2019, 09:57 PM

I know of a number of people who are inclined to vote for Jo Swinson simply to avoid electing yet another white man. I would be happy with either of them.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 31st May 2019, 07:06 AM

She's got that West Country calm demeanor, a positive attitude, and appears not to avoid questions with guff like so many evasive BS'ers, breath of fresh air in UK politics I propose.....

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 1st June 2019, 03:03 PM

West Country??? She's from Milngavie at the edge of Glasgow.



The woman is odious. Her BS about Higher Education on QT as if she didn't vote to f*** the poor and triple tuition fees so she could have a f***ing ministerial jag. Thats before we get to her wholly false claim of 80% of pupils in her constituency going to uni (no statistics reflect this at all. And the CyberNats have looked EVERYWHERE) and then using a srsly selective measure to try and trash Glasgow Govan (Sturgeons constituency, as if her resorting to SNPBAD is a surprise) that is not only out of date but doesn't actually reflect the reality of the actual situation in Glasgow Govan. So outrageous a claim that even the head of education in Glasgow (not a nationalist) called her out for it.

She may as well be a tory for how little factual content actually comes out her mouth.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 1st June 2019, 05:13 PM

which is in the west

Ahh that old tuition fees thing is back. Labour party introduced policy. Tory party policy. Libdems amended the policy after voting for it against promises. You can't work together and win every argument compromise is entirely the point and Clegg paid for his agreeing to it. But then we've gone over this endlessly.

So APART from still being pissed over tuition fees (as am I, as I was when Labour introduced it, and Tories upped the cost), and her claim which appears to have no basis to it - quite easy to ask her to name the source and sort it out - you really like her then....?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 1st June 2019, 07:20 PM

It's not the "West Country" tho is it?


I'm over this spin about tuition fees. They had morals. Nobody held a gun to their head and walked them through that lobby. They all did so willingly. They enabled the austerity agenda and for what? The AV Referendum? DISGUSTENG

The whole tuition fees thing has never impacted me. I finished my degree as it was being introduced and I was in Scotland so #Free thanks to the SNP scrapping the graduate tax the LibLab lot swapped tuition fees for. There is no source that provides a figure that she quoted for her constituency. The Govan one was located by CyberUnionists pretty swiftly, but not even they can find anything for East Dunbartonshire that comes within a hundred miles of her BS claim. The whole of Scotland has tried!

I dislike her because she's an overly partisan entitled hypocrite who took losing her seat about as well as someone would take being force-fed bleach. I've zero tolerance for any Scottish politician who just dribbles out #SNPBad rubbish or anti-nationalist shite. None of it is ever backed up with facts or reality. You've got this shitbag and her party standing up and whining about stealth austerity in Scotland and how independence means austerity as if they didn't enable the tory regime in 2010 that has lead to my generation being royally f***ed, brexit and our country lying in ruins. I've no time for it and I had no time for it when I was a LibDem voter pre-austerity.

Posted by: Suedehead2 1st June 2019, 08:05 PM

For what?

How about the pupil premium, shared parental leave, increased personal allowance, various environmental policies, triple lock on pensions and same sex marriage?

That's a pretty good list in my book. Their reward was to be criticised by the NUS for implementing what was very close to NUS policy at the time.


As for austerity, we've seen in the last few years what the Tories would have done with the majority they would probably have won in a second election in 2010/11, It should also be remembered that the coalition reduced the deficit by 50%. That was well short of the Tory target of 100)% but in line with Labour's target. In other words, in order to achieve their target, Labour would have needed to implement measures just as harsh as those implemented by the coalition. Funnily enough, they won't admit that.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 2nd June 2019, 06:59 PM

What Suedey said.

a COALITION IS ABOUT COMPROMISE. That's the whole raison detre and the reason our parliament is in a total mess - nobody knows how to compromise. That s what the EU does. You get some stuff through you dont get other stuff. The LABOUR policy of charging student fees was not a Libdem policy, The TORY decision to raise it to 9000 was tempered by the Libdem making sure that it wasnt a debt it was a future tax on earnings that would only happen on people earning decent cash. Had I been in that situation rather rather than free education I would have barely paid back a penny being as I've never earned enough in local gov service.

By all means slag off the LIbdems for entering into coalition with the biggest party - but that's what a coalition means. The alternative would have been to prop up an unpopular PM and Party and get slagged off for that, both wanting massive cuts and austerity.

Everyone being so f***ing partisan and tunnel-visioned is why we are in a complete mess as a nation and undergoing rigor mortis. Criticising your political opponents is what politicians do. If it's not backed-up you point it out. The SNP do it, The Libdems do it. Everyone does it. Now if you were to give some examples of Jo Swinson being unreasonable (you've given one) then MAYBE you would have a point - assuming that what she says isn;t valid. From what Ive seen she has said is willing to talk and work with any party. Which is something no other party is saying. And we've seen how well that's worked out for us all.....

Posted by: TheSnake 2nd June 2019, 07:02 PM

Maybe its time the subtitle was changed for this thread...the Lib Dems are certainly more relevant now!

Posted by: Iz~ 3rd June 2019, 05:07 AM

As a Lib-Dem member (if lapsed due to my expat status) I disagree, our party thread titles are more banter than anything else, and this is fine until we're back to 50+ seats. I'd take 'traitorous Remoaner saboteur things' though.

god yes though, I hate when the centre-left eats itself through petty squabbles. So, the Libs are a bit more neolib, a bit less authoritarian than Labour, I still think a coalition with both of those views in power would make for the dream government of the UK, they are close enough that they can work through these issues in a coalition. And it is slightly ridiculous that the Lib Dems get viewed as anything other than a brake on the Tories for their role in the 2010-15 government, just contrast the difference between then and now, besides the point that criticising them for it is now about as valid as the ridiculous 'the last Labour government' line the Tories were trotting out as late as 2017.

Slightly different in Scotland with the added elements, which is my main point against Jo, I reckon she will win and my gut says she will be more successful for the party, but my preference would be Ed Davey.

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th June 2019, 03:17 PM

Nominations have closed and it is now officially Ed Davey v Jo Swinson.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 13th June 2019, 09:41 PM

As expected, Chuka Umunna has joined the Liberal Democrats on a free after being released by Change UK. He was the highest profile member of the splitters, so it was inevitable he would be the Lib Dem's biggest coup - could potentially be a future leader if he holds on to his seat and stays for a few years. Now to see if any of the other prior CUKs join on a Bosman.

Posted by: Harve 13th June 2019, 09:49 PM

More importantly, former Justice minister Philip Lee is rumoured to be joining the Lib Dems - the 5th MP to defect from the Tories this year, with Dominic Grieve voting against the government in a confidence motion in order to prevent No Deal, so I'm basically counting him as a 6th.

In January, Independent MP Lady Hermon voted with the government. Ivan Lewis and John Woodcock - two Independent and former Labour MPs - abstained. Fiona Onasanya and Paul Flynn were absent from the commons but have now been replaced by two new Labour MPs in crucial by-election wins.

If (a big if!) there were no changes to these irregularities, then government numbers would now be 319 vs. opposition numbers of 314. In January, numbers were 325 for the government and 306 for the opposition, so this marks quite a bit fall in the size of the government's working majority, which has become incredibly small and can be erased by three more defections. All of these figures exclude tellers and Speakers.

Posted by: Suedehead2 13th June 2019, 09:50 PM

Chuka Umunna has still been a member of fewer parties in the last six months than Change UK have had names. They are now called Independent Change For Changing Independence or something like that.

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 14th June 2019, 07:36 AM

They're now called Independent Group for Spare Change.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 14th June 2019, 08:16 AM

Posted by: Steve201 14th June 2019, 11:36 PM

What a horrible sleazy door to door salesman the wannabe blairite Ummuna is.

Posted by: Harve 15th June 2019, 09:06 PM

Not necessarily the relevant thread, but we can https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/15/kenneth-clarke-bring-down-no-deal-government. 318 vs 315?

Posted by: Harve 15th June 2019, 09:09 PM

We will also find out next week if there will be a https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Brecon_and_Radnorshire_recall_petition over the summer, which would be a big chance for the Lib Dems to gain another MP off the Tories and crucial for any no confidence vote.

Posted by: Iz~ 22nd July 2019, 03:31 PM

Jo Swinson is the new leader and first female leader of the Liberal Democrats.

Good choice, I ended up voting for her in the end but there was very little in it, but she got quite a comfortable margin. 47,900 to Ed's 28,021.

Posted by: Suedehead2 22nd July 2019, 04:51 PM

I voted for Jo Swinson as well but I would have been perfectly relaxed if Ed Davey had won. So, for 24 hours, two of the three main GB-wide parties are led by a woman. The most depressing thing is that Jo is the first party leader to have been born in the 1980s. That makes me feel ancient

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 22nd July 2019, 05:15 PM

She’s currently on track to lose her seat in a General Election so i wouldn’t be putting bets on this enthusiastic Tory enabler voting correctly in a motion of no confidence in Boris. She lost her own seat at the Euros by quite a margin to the SNP

Posted by: Harve 22nd July 2019, 07:13 PM

Polls are so up in the air right now so it's difficult to make predictions either way, but she could easily lose her seat if the SNP return to near-2015 levels and the unionist vote doesn't consolidate to one particular party. Indeed, the SNP beat the Lib Dems quite comfortably in her constituency in May.

But the Lib Dems will absolutely vote No Confidence. I'm more worried about independent MPs like Ian Austin, John Woodcock, Frank Field, Anna Soubry, or even Labour MPs such as Sarah Champion.

Posted by: Harve 22nd July 2019, 07:37 PM

My favourite thing about this whole contest is that there's a small chance that more Lib Dem members have participated in voting for their leader than Tory members have voted for the next PM. The latter contest (justifiably) got a lot more coverage, but perhaps in terms of media coverage, the Lib Dems shouldn't be so sidelined.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd July 2019, 07:12 AM

So, suggesting (despite everything she has just said about doing everything she can to stop brexit - see SNP for similar viewpoints) she's become Leader in a secret bid to avoid losing her seat (which she's lost before) by voting to keep a man pushing a Hard Brexit that will ruin the country and force the end of the UK, leaving her to forge a new career in a new independent Scotland?

Hmmm. Sounds a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to me. Or maybe it's that she served in a coalition government that raised Labour's tuition fees despite saying they wouldn't (but also made them a future tax rather than a debt) and is now the leader of the main opposition party in Scotland to the SNP re potential supporters?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd July 2019, 07:41 AM

Whit?! What I’m actually saying is that I wouldn’t put money on her backing a no confidence vote because she’s a self serving twat who’d be voting to lose her own job a week after gaining it.

I want independence for Scotland but please do go and find where I have ever said, non-sarcastically, that I back no deal as a means to achieve it. To get independence that way would mean having to actually go through a no deal Brexit which would be a f***ing unmitigated disaster for both Scotland and rUK.

She’s not the leader of the main opposition party tho. Even under the specific circumstances of the Euros they came third. Scottish polling is significantly more stable than UK wide polling and the LD are 5th. I’m far more interested in what the Greens are up to than the three indistinguishable shades of unionist

Posted by: Popchartfreak 23rd July 2019, 12:28 PM

1. You implied she's a self-serving unscrupulous woman based on....nothing. I pointed out that following your logic she is basically going against what she has just said in a speech as her priority: stopping Brexit, What evidence do you have that she's a liar who'd turn round immediately and support anyone going for Brexit that wasn't supported by either a referendum or a GE?

I never implied that you said anything about Brexit. I pointed out that your logic would be Jo Swinson immediately lying about her main point, therefby supporting a Hard Brexit by not dumping Johnson at the first opportunity, and which is most likely to lead the disintegration of the UK leaving her as both out of a job AND out of a career, and incidentally f***ing us all up. What part of my logic do you have a problem with? Isn't it just more likely that she won't act as you suggest cos you have a chip on your shoulder about her for slagging off the SNP?

I said main opposition party to most likely switch from the SNP. The SNP support Remain. The Lib-Dems support remain. The Tories and Labour haven't a clue what they support. Feel free to persuade me that SNP voters are more likely to vote Labour, Tory or Brexit Party - I could make a case for Labour (social policy wise) but they ain't that different from Lib-dems and they still support Brexit officially.

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd July 2019, 01:05 PM

Is this the time to remind people of the time the SNP had to rely on Tory support to govern Scotland?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd July 2019, 01:17 PM

As a minority administration they approached all parties to do a budget deal that would enact their agenda. That is *specifically* how the devolved administrations work. At no point did either compromise their ideals nor was their a pact or confidence and supply arrangement. The SNP have supported Tory bits of legislation in Westminster since 2010 as all parties have.

At no point have they propped up a Tory government or voted to enact devastating austerity selling all their morals and values for a ministerial jag

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd July 2019, 01:37 PM

1 - did I say that she would support Brexit? No. Stop inventing words to put in my mouth thank you. I said that I wouldn’t hold my breath on her supporting a no confidence vote. That is not the same as turning around and supporting Brexit.

As for why I think she’s self serving please see the entitled bollocks she came out with between 2015-17 after losing her seat.

2 - your post was about as clear as the Thames. I didn’t follow your logic because you made a few leaps that were tough to follow. I now see your logic.

3 - no chip. I dislike all hypocrites equally.

4 - Scottish politics doesn’t divide Leave vs Remain like rUK. An estimated 33% of SNP voters backed leave after all. Unionist vs Nationalist lenses need to be applied to everything, in this case the primary threat is from the Greens (4th). The LibDems need to demonstrate the wider and sustained backing of unionist former labour voters in order to gather up the unionist remain vote. Problem is that that pool isn’t that big with more unionists backing leave (see the correlation between leave vote and which seats went Tory in 2017). This is why the LD comeback narrative doesn’t apply to the same extent in Scotland and why at this present time i don’t believe them to be the opposition party to the SNP.

Before the centre-right realignment of the LD I was a LibDem voter, should they swing back to centre-left I’d probably vote for them again in an Indy Scotland. I don’t believe that Jo is the right person to do that. Her voting record is centre-right and she voted through some pretty ghastly policies which does offset the good they’ve done for me - mainly because while it’s wonderful that i can marry whoever I end up with their enablement of austerity can not and should not be overlooked given that it’s a big driver in the vote to leave the EU. No viable plan to remain is going to succeed without a corresponding plan to end austerity or at the very least challenge the narrative that immigrants are to blame for stretched services.

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd July 2019, 02:20 PM

In other words, they worked with the Tories because that’s how the electoral arithmetic worked out. Ditto the Lib Dems in 2010.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 23rd July 2019, 02:33 PM

The two are not in anyway comparable situations and you know that.

For one the SNP were the larger party and for two it was only for a specific piece of legislation. The LD voted with the Tories en mass and we’re an active participant in the government of cruelty. No Tories were part of the SNP administration

Posted by: Suedehead2 23rd July 2019, 03:43 PM

But the Lib Dems were a part of a Labour-led administration in Scotland which destroys the claim that they "always" side with the Tories.

Anyway, this whole argument is based on a premise that Labour would somehow have avoided any austerity measures. Labour went in to the 2010election promising to halve the deficit within five years. That is almost exactly what the coalition achieved. For Labour to have achieved their target, they would have had to introduce further tax increases or made cuts elsewhere.

There was one major difference between Scotland and the UK you didn't mention. In the UK, the Tories had the option of calling a general election at any time. We all know that they would have done so at the earliest opportunity. Surely the events of the last few years have made it abundantly clear what a Tory government with a majority (probably greater than the one Cameron won in 2015) in 2010 or 2011 would have been like.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 24th July 2019, 07:13 AM

The Libdems in 2010 were face with 2 choices;

Go with an austerity Labour Party who had just presided over f***ing up the economy by letting British banks do what they like, and getting involved in a war in Iraq (which the Libdems voted against) with the main man behind the banking sector propping up the UK economy and ignoring it's behaviour for a decade in charge of the party.

Go with an austerity Tory Party who had more votes, democratically not having just been rejected by voters.


The third choice - to let no party have control at all - is not too far from the mess of the last 3 years where nothing has been achieved and life is much much worse.

Sometimes in politics you get faced with 2 shit choices and you can't avoid opting for one or other. Having opted you do your damndest to remove the extreme, more damaging legislation to the best of your ability.

Anyone slagging off the Libdems is free to suggest what they could and should have done. No-one that I have ever seen has come up with a working alternative that didn't involve national chaos and worse suffering.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 27th July 2019, 09:15 PM

It's being reported in The Times that Heidi Allen & Sarah Wollaston may be joining the Lib Dems. Heidi Allen was spotted campaigning for the Lib Dems in Brecon ahead of the upcoming by-election there.

*edit* realised that Times article was actually from last month (pesky paywall), but Heidi Allen is https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/07/heidi-allen-joins-liberal-democrats.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th July 2019, 09:29 PM

Sarah Wollaston would be a great recruit for the Lib Dems. I've had a lot of respect for her from her early days as an MP. A lot of her instincts are vaguely Tory, but very much on the left of her former party. She was selected under Cameron's short-lived open primary process with her lack of political history as her main selling point. I suspect that the longer she has been involved in politics, the more she has realised that she was never a true-blue Tory and certainly doesn't fit in with today's hard-right party.

Posted by: Popchartfreak 28th July 2019, 03:35 PM

Anyone with an astrophysics degree is far too smart to be a Tory, as she found out when she started hanging around with them at length

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th August 2019, 09:11 PM

And she has finally taken the plunge and joined the Lib Dems.

Posted by: Steve201 14th August 2019, 09:55 PM

Too many plastic progressives in the Lib Dems for my liking!

Enjoy your Chukka Ummuna parties flip flopping in the middle of the road all the time.

Posted by: Steve201 15th August 2019, 03:24 PM

Lol I just realised I posted this last night, apologies I was intoxicated!!

Maybe that's when the truth comes out though

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 15th August 2019, 03:27 PM

You were completely right. They are vile Tory lite.

Posted by: Steve201 15th August 2019, 04:23 PM

I reiterate the point given her behaviour this afternoon demanding a Clarke or Harman led government lol.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 15th August 2019, 04:48 PM

Like that Tory douche has any right choosing the Labour leader!! Entitled Tory BRAT

Posted by: Iz~ 15th August 2019, 05:29 PM

See and that's where your argument collapses. It's not the Labour leader. It's someone who can command loyalty, even if only briefly, across the house. Inevitably that'll be someone who's shown they are open to accepting several parts of the political spectrum. Certainly not Corbyn.

One of the worst trends in current politics is to demonise people for 'changing sides'. People don't stay the same and if they're willing to work with people from a number of different ideologies, all the better.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 15th August 2019, 05:35 PM

So being a Tory stooge for 5 years is fine, but moving away from Tory policies towards a left wing caretaker government to free of us Bojo and his far right autocratic government is not? If that's what she thinks, she's the same old right wing Jo Swanson as ever and has NOT changed. Three weeks with Corbyn running the government should be palatable to anyone, especially someone who vlaims to be lefr wing. She's not and she showed her true colours. This is 2010 all over agaon. Tories before flagship policy!

Posted by: Iz~ 15th August 2019, 05:41 PM

? Three weeks? Where did you get that from. There's no procedure for this, it probably can't even get support of the house, and even if it were only three weeks (very unlikely given the timescale of the crisis) it'd only lead to a general election where renewed Tories can point to Labour-Lib Dem colluding as anti-democratic and win. It's a nonsense suggestion that won't pass, and doesn't advance either party's interests well.

Imagine being so desperate for Labour to be in power that you must make an emergency coup (don't get me wrong, I support the idea of said emergency coup) an obviously Labour run thing rather than the big tent it must be to be legitimate.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 15th August 2019, 06:45 PM

We're ALL desperate to get this evil landed gentry corporation of a government out ans stop their right wing brexshit coup!

Posted by: Steve201 15th August 2019, 06:58 PM

Of course a 'national government' would have all shades of opinion in it but you also have to be democratic in its creation and realise that labour has a much larger mandate than the Liberal Democrats?

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 15th August 2019, 07:00 PM

Preach!

Posted by: Rooney 15th August 2019, 07:06 PM

Which is true, but Labour cannot and will not be able to command a majority. There is no way they can right at this moment in time, they have lost too much ground by sitting on the fence. The pressure is on Corbyn now as the choice ultimately will be does Corbyn care about Corbyn, or does he care about the Labour party. The Lib Dems have already won too much centrist ground and will continue to do so as the momentum is with them.

Corbyn barely has the control of 80% of his MPs never mind another 4/5 smaller parties to contest with as well. I think some Tory MPs could be persuaded to back a more Centrist Labour MP, but Corbyn's plan to form an emergency government will just not work.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 15th August 2019, 07:09 PM

The emergency government will deal with brexshit and an election, nothing more. Anyone refusing to work with Corbyn shows them up as idealogues and right wing corporate slaves.

Posted by: Steve201 15th August 2019, 10:39 PM

Agreed, the pressure isn't on JC he is called out for not having an opinion of Brexit again and again when in reality the party have reiterated their position again and again to the media and centrist opposition MPs who refuse to listen out of political self interest - the tories as they oppose him and remainers because they refuse to listen to what the people voted for in 2016 JC has done the right thing in being open to another vote but in understanding that many people want to leave the EU at the same time.

Posted by: Iz~ 15th August 2019, 11:23 PM

Careful, the Corbyn cult is really showing.

Political gaming is necessary and don’t think for one second that Corbyn is above it. Most likely Swinson will get on side IF there’s a less controversial proposed leader that will get the numbers required. The LDs need to be the balancing act that will tip Labour into getting this to workability.

Posted by: Iz~ 15th August 2019, 11:24 PM

The last thing we need is tribalism so give it a rest.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 16th August 2019, 05:19 AM

The Lib Dems - punching themselves in the face since 2010.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 16th August 2019, 08:21 PM

I absolutely detest Swinson. However. I think she’s got the better suggestion here. Getting two well respected MPs, one from either party, to head a gov of national unity is exactly the path to take imo. It’s only for a short time so really what you need is a skeleton gov in place to get the important jobs done. Extend article 50 and get that GE sorted. Have someone from the SNP, LD, PC and then Caroline Lucas in the top team and that’s it. Nothing fancy, just get something that can unify a majority.

Corbyn won’t get a majority backing. Can’t even control his own party ffs.

Posted by: Envoirment 16th August 2019, 09:21 PM

Yes, I don't really see how the Lib Dems commited "suicide" from what Jo said. It was a sensible solution, although the word sensible doesn't really fit in with the current political climate.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th August 2019, 01:54 PM

The amusing thing is that Ken Clarke didn't command a majority back in April.... thanks to... yes you've guessed it. The Lib Dems!

Posted by: Doctor Blind 17th August 2019, 01:57 PM

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th August 2019, 02:47 PM

Had they voted for it, the screams of "betrayal" would have been deafening. The Lib Dems are against withdrawal in any form; their failure to vote for Clarke's proposal is consistent with that.

Posted by: Suedehead2 17th August 2019, 02:48 PM

She hasn't said she would oppose a no-confidence motion. Indeed, she tried to table one just before the summer recess. It didn't get anywhere because Corbyn chose not to back it.

Posted by: Harve 17th August 2019, 03:34 PM

Not sure where you're quoting that from, but a customs union and/or Labour's proposition end free movement. They're not a soft Brexit as that quote implies :x

Posted by: Suedehead2 5th September 2019, 11:08 AM

The Lib Dems have gained another MP. Luciana Berger, former Labour MP who had been sitting as an independent, has followed Philip Lee earlier this week.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 5th September 2019, 11:10 AM

No surprise, even if the media tried to make it sound like it was and tried to legitimise her reasons for leaving Labour by reporting her opinions of Labour as facts.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 5th September 2019, 11:11 AM

Good news for the Lib Dem’s. Given that she’s one of the most prominent Jewish MPs, it may attract left-leaning Jews who want to vote for a left-leaning party that isn’t systemically anti-Semitic.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 5th September 2019, 11:20 AM

Either Labour was systematically so under Blair and the media didn't care, oe they are using it as an anti Labour attack. Either way, ir does NOT reflect well on corporate media.

Posted by: Brett-Butler 5th September 2019, 11:22 AM

Please don’t attempt to use the false dichotomy fallacy.

Posted by: Steve201 5th September 2019, 03:12 PM

But no offence you are by trying to suggest the Lib dems are a left leaning party 😂

Posted by: Brett-Butler 5th September 2019, 03:17 PM

I’m pretty sure most people would see the Lib Dem’s as a left-leaning party. Although people who stand in a different position may see things differently.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 5th September 2019, 03:20 PM

They are centre right.

Posted by: Izzy 5th September 2019, 03:25 PM

In terms of recent MP defections, it's making them look more like the centre.

In terms of recent policies, they're centre-left with a possible economic right bent.

But more importantly than any left or right dichotomy they're liberal (as in opposition to authoritarianism), and a broad church, even more so lately, underneath that liberalism. People too often forget that the left-right axis isn't the only plane in existence nor should it always be the most important.

Posted by: Izzy 5th September 2019, 03:30 PM

I'm afraid that post was very 'sponsored by the political compass' but there are liberal parties and there are centrist parties (not in the UK, but New Labour were fairly close) and they are very often not in agreement.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 5th September 2019, 03:50 PM

But they are above all NEO Liberal.

Posted by: Izzy 5th September 2019, 04:04 PM

Which has far too often in recent years been used as a snarl word to align the listener against whoever has been described as such rather than being a legitimate political ideology. Which it is. But few people who use it really know what the word means.

But yes, they are broadly neoliberal, which is fine, it's a damn sight better than whatever classical liberalism has turned into, you generally only see that phrase being used in recent years as a self-description to avoid saying 'libertarian with a high opinion of themselves'.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 5th September 2019, 04:09 PM

It's not fine, as neoliberal policies have led to the plutocracies that we have today.

Posted by: Izzy 5th September 2019, 04:30 PM

yeah no that was all conservatism with their hierarchies and constant refusal by elites to accept successful governments that were left of center, I mean, neoliberalism certainly HELPED a bit because it's so good everyone was doing it for a while. But it had nothing to do with this latest wave of right-wing populism nor has it ever really threatened to destroy society except through its own hubris.

I also think that liberalism is in a state of morphing beyond the old neoliberalism for the new century. Just as Corbynism is promoting a new kind of socialism in the UK, the liberals are shedding the baggage of neoliberalism and updating it so that it can coexist with fundamentals of society that are changing.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th September 2019, 04:59 AM

1. I see the current wave of right-wing populism as being a temporary response to the rampant political correctness that threatens to destabilize our country.

2. A 'new' kind of socialism? It looks very much like the old, repeated failed, variety to me!

Posted by: Harve 6th September 2019, 06:49 AM

After everything that has happened in the last 5 years, there are still people who think that it's 'political correctness' that risks destabilising a country.

lmao

Posted by: vidcapper 6th September 2019, 07:41 AM

Makes wonder how our countries ever managed to survive before PC was even thought of...

Posted by: Suedehead2 6th September 2019, 08:07 AM

We survived before computers were invented as well. Do you want to abolish them?

Posted by: Izzy 6th September 2019, 08:22 AM

Yeah I’d really rather someone pulled me up on playing fast and loose with the definitions of political ideologies, that’s how much I don’t want to see more political correctness takes. Being polite and biting your tongue on slurs is not destabilising our society.

As such I’d go into Corbyn’s socialism/social democracy but this isn’t really the topic for that, however I will just say briefly it shares much with European social democrats such as the governing parties in Sweden and Denmark, who of course are not failed governments. It only looks like the old left because the UK has been in sore need of a proper left-wing party for too long, but the model can certainly work.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th September 2019, 09:56 AM

There's a *reason* why haven't had a left-wing gov't since the 70's, as anyone over 45 could tell you. It can be summed up in three words though : Winter Of Discontent

Posted by: Izzy 6th September 2019, 10:34 AM

The way things are going, there will be a repeat of that statement in 2050 but reversed for the right-wing and the words being No Deal Brexit.

But that’s just as fallacious, one crisis in one country decades ago has little relevance now. But the point is that British people are currently unused to differentiating between leftists because of this period where they weren’t prominent. It’s a model that has a good chance of seeing success based on contemporary analogues in other countries which is somewhat more relevant!

Posted by: vidcapper 6th September 2019, 10:48 AM

British society has indeed changed in the last 40 years, but surely no-one outside the extreme-left would want to revert to a situation where trade unions could hold the country to ransom?

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 6th September 2019, 12:45 PM

1. Not extreme left. Moderate european left.

2. Moderate Keynsian economics.

3. This same model did wonders in Portugal, Norway and Sweden.

4. Neoliberal economics lead to boom n bust, recesssion, plutocracy and rich with so much money they are above the law.

Posted by: Izzy 6th September 2019, 12:56 PM

Unions should be encouraged to have power and work with corp, they should not be demonised, as has happened for too long. Thatcher's reforms on unions may have been necessary at the time but it's swung too far the other way.

Incidentally, preventing left excesses (though I do consider myself pretty left) is one of the reasons why I'm a LD member, to help facilitate my preferred government (or rather dream if they'd all just stop damn fighting and annihilate the far-right already), a left Labour with Liberal input via either coalition or supply.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 6th September 2019, 12:58 PM

100% AGREED. By shifting the Overton Window and attacking the unions all the time, the right wing have successfully managed to disempower the working classes and increase the power of the untouchable rich even more.

I think Lib Dems are too right wing and that's why I would never support them, except in a Tory LD marginal.

Posted by: Izzy 6th September 2019, 01:08 PM

and guess where I've lived for most of my life.

In my dream, it is the Liberals who are the right wing of Britain, the Conservatives are a minor extreme shadow, and Labour are the left wing. Overton Window needs shifting back.

And it is the Liberals who can dislodge Tories in the countryside so LibLab fights are strictly counterproductive (for now) in my eyes.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 6th September 2019, 01:14 PM

That would actually be a much better political balance than we have right now with the far right landed gentry Tories as a large party. The only way tog et there is massive media reform, with all political bias banned, just like it is SUPPOSED TO BE (but isn't) on radio and tv. And a new voting systemz one that's not designed to return Tory majorities and have a 2 party system, of course.

The Libs should take the fight to the Tories, especially now with how far right the Tories are. They woukd be able to sway a lot of more moderate countryside voters.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th September 2019, 02:26 PM

OK, so there's *one* person who wouldn't mind the unions holding the country to ransom...

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 6th September 2019, 02:36 PM

That's a big fat Thatcher fallacy. The unions need more power and the rich need less of it.

Posted by: vidcapper 6th September 2019, 02:42 PM

Is there one word that comes out of your mouth that isn't neo-Marxism?

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 6th September 2019, 03:05 PM

Or one out of yours that isn't extremely right wing neoliberal?

Posted by: Steve201 9th September 2019, 01:40 PM

Come on VC, everything that makes this country civilised was introduced by labour manifestos from 1935-79 period - Free healthcare/decent welfare for all/family income/legal aid/Free education until third level/redistribution of wealth for the very rich/near full employment until the late 60s/ and people take it so much for granted - just look at the country in the 100 years before this - the only difference between the two political parties was between free trade or protectionism and Ireland which created extreme wealth and extreme poverty.

Labour has forced the right onto their ground in a lot of these situations so much so that they have to proclaim how much they love a nationalised health system when becoming leader!

It was because of trade unions that this was possible - without them MPs have flogged off the family jewels to corporations who people have no say in whereas if things were not ran properly as nationalised industries you can deselect or vote in a different mp!

Posted by: Brett-Butler 14th September 2019, 06:33 PM

Sam Gymiah, former Conservative minister, has just defected to the Lib Dems. That's another one on their team.

There was also rumours that a prominent Labour member would be defecting today, but it will need to be someone of great prominence to be a bigger defection than this one.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 14th September 2019, 06:56 PM

Yellow Tories.

Posted by: Harve 14th September 2019, 08:15 PM

Honestly, you should be happy. They need to take as many Tory votes as they can. Almost all of their gains are going to be in current Tory seats, but they risk allowing the Tories in Labour-Con marginal seats if the majority of their votes continue to come from former Labour voters.

Posted by: Steve201 14th September 2019, 08:17 PM

It's true, shows the British party system needs realigned and the voting system changed instead of having all these people with such broad opinions in 2/3 parties.

Posted by: Rooney 14th September 2019, 08:46 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEVvnY6WsAE9kHZ?format=jpg&name=large

This is Michael

Posted by: Brett-Butler 14th September 2019, 08:47 PM

I agree. The problem is that the big two parties have a vested interest in keeping FPTP in place, hence why it's still in place. I hoped that with so many sitting MPs currently in limbo and no party with an overall majority at this moment that PR would be put back on the table as a topic of discussion, but so far there hasn't been anything yet.

Quite counter-intuitively, if PR were to be introduced, I believe that the biggest victims of the new system would be the Lib Dems themselves despite being the biggest supporters of it, but unless it ever comes in we can't see that in practice.

Posted by: Harve 14th September 2019, 09:11 PM

Alan Sugar has gone down the curious Dan Hodges/John Rentoul path of Blairite -> Remain -> No Deal Brexit-supporting Tory tbf.

Posted by: Steve201 14th September 2019, 11:39 PM

Looking back the 1914-45 period was similar to today in that there was a lot of MPs changing parties or becoming seperate from their traditional parties due to the ruptures in society at the time.

Posted by: vidcapper 15th September 2019, 04:50 AM

Is that because they'd then have to really stand up & be counted, rather than rely on mostly protest votes?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th September 2019, 07:45 AM

Shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss Michaels “yellow tories” because they absolutely are. They’ve been talking with the Scottish Tories about an election pact to avoid wipe out for both parties (on the mainland as Orkney and Shetland will obvi stay LD).

So for all their talk about stopping brexit they’re happy to put pro-hard brexit tories into Westminster as long as that means the very pro-EU SNP don’t gain the seat. Because that makes perfect sense.

f***ing unionist logic man. It’s wild

Posted by: vidcapper 15th September 2019, 08:17 AM

We *so* need PR, preferably STV!

Posted by: Rooney 15th September 2019, 09:16 AM

I'm faily certain the Scottish Tories are Remain too? or at least pro-Soft Brexit.

The Lib Dems are doing what Labour should be doing to win a General Election.. hoovering up the Centre-Right vote.

Posted by: vidcapper 15th September 2019, 09:28 AM

As long as Corbyn is in charge, the centre-right vote is completely off-limits to Labour - they're hardly gonna vote for someone who wants to bleed them dry!

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th September 2019, 09:34 AM

Under STV, there would be a good deal less need for protest votes. As for the original assertion, the Lib Dems would have to do spectacularly badly to win as few seats under a proportional system as they won in the last two general elections.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 15th September 2019, 09:52 AM

Right wing talking point propaganda.

Anyone under 80k will be faaar better off and not taxed a penny more

Those above shoulf br willing to fund a better society anyway.

Posted by: vidcapper 15th September 2019, 10:02 AM

I agree with the latter part, but would undoubtedly have to form some form of coalition to get a taste of power - and that didn't exactly work out well for them, last time...

Posted by: vidcapper 15th September 2019, 10:05 AM

Yeah right, because everyone loves paying more taxes, especially when they won't personally benefit from it...

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 15th September 2019, 10:09 AM

And yet everyonr benefits from a better society?

FDR had a tax rate of 90% on millionaires. It was America's golden age. Care to comment? x

Posted by: Brett-Butler 15th September 2019, 10:11 AM

Yes, the tail-end of the Great Depression, World War II & putting Japanese immigrants in camps definitely marks a Golden Age for America.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 15th September 2019, 10:35 AM

Economic golden age x FDR sorted out the depression, created an extremely strong middle class, and the modern American dream.

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th September 2019, 10:43 AM

The big difference is that the disparity in seat numbers between two coalition partners would be much smaller under STV. The Tories in the coalition years kept banging on about how they had five times more MPs than the Lib Dems. They achieved that on about 1.5 times the vote. If the balance of MPs reflected that, the junior partner would be in a much stronger position.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th September 2019, 12:20 PM

Oh no the Scottish Tories are either plastic soft Brexiteers (ie will do what boris says regardless of what they’ve said in the past) or are fundamentalists wholly at odds with their constituents. Like a more delusional Kate Hoey.

Never trust a Tory and the Scottish lot are just as vomit inducing as the English lot. BBC Scotland and the Unionist media have been residing 4ft up Ruth Davidson’s arse so the picture they paint isn’t exactly reliable.

Posted by: Harve 15th September 2019, 12:26 PM

That was just a random Tory briefing a journalist to slander the Lib Dems to be fair. There was nothing truthful about that report.

Like, criticise them based on what they've actually said and done, as there's plenty there.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th September 2019, 12:33 PM

Like Willie Rennie, the MSP for where my folks like, today saying that the LD would refuse an IndyRef2 in any circumstances even where there was an explicit holyrood mandate in 2021 (not that we need another mandate)

Neither liberal nor a democrat.

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th September 2019, 12:38 PM

If we are still in the EU in 2021, there is a good case for rejecting another independence referendum. If we have left, that justification dies. There will have been such a fundamental change in circumstances since 2014 that another referendum would be perfectly reasonable.

Posted by: Harve 15th September 2019, 01:03 PM

Yes precisely.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 15th September 2019, 01:07 PM

If there’s a democratically elected government at holyrood on the manifesto commitment to hold it, then there is no justification to deny it.

Posted by: Steve201 15th September 2019, 06:24 PM

Who gives the right to hold the referendum - a British PM??

Posted by: Steve201 15th September 2019, 06:25 PM

They did benefit from the world wars though and it was their golden age the Breton Woods era 1931-73!

Posted by: Suedehead2 15th September 2019, 09:40 PM

Under the law, yes. The Scottish government could go ahead and hold a referendum, but it would have no legal status whatsoever without the consent of the UK government.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th September 2019, 05:00 AM

Whereas one *with* he consent of the UK gov't also has no legal status, according to some Remainers...

Posted by: vidcapper 16th September 2019, 05:03 AM

True enough - but what if the Westminster parliament decided it was only advisory...

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th September 2019, 07:16 AM

Oh dear, not again. We are a parliamentary democracy. That means parliament is sovereign unless it specifically legislates otherwise. With the AV referendum, they did so. The result was binding. With the EU referendum, they consciously did not. The result was not binding.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th September 2019, 07:35 AM

I suspect whether they are made binding or not, depends on how confident they are of winning them...

Posted by: Izzy 16th September 2019, 08:05 AM

I'm rather happy with the Lib Dem official policy to revoke Article 50. For one, about time one of our political parties did so (note that it'll be enacted with a Lib Dem majority, and if we get to that unlikely point then I think the issue is settled) because it was insane that such a popular position wasn't officially being represented as policy even if the LDs obviously agreed with it, for another, it allows a lot of wiggle room for a pact or negotiation with a party looking for a People's Vote.

Posted by: Common Sense 16th September 2019, 08:19 AM

I think if Labour gets most seats but not a majority and the Lib-Dems get 50-60 each then Labour would rather go with the SNP. Can't see the LD gaining so many though myself. Anyway Swinson's already said that she wouldn't work with Corbyn.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 16th September 2019, 08:22 AM

Westminster can do what it wants, once it gives permission to hold it via section 30 order then a Yes vote would allow Scotland to repeal the Act of Union as passed by the Scottish Parliament in the v early 1700’s and declare independence. As ref was held under section 30 it would be deemed legal and within the competence of the Scottish Parliament to do so. Westminster can do whatever it wants but it’d have no standing in national or international law.

I see what you were aiming for but you’re not smart enough to pull it off. Referendum via the Section 30 Order would be binding and up to the Scottish Parliament to act on the result not Westminster

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 16th September 2019, 08:31 AM

Wham bam! You just left the gammon bald! Snatched.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th September 2019, 08:32 AM

But the Scottish Parliament would still need Westminster's cooperation to deal with all the minutiae, and as the Brexit process has proved, they can fight like cornered rats to defend their position, regardless of the will of the electorate.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 16th September 2019, 08:39 AM

Does it tho?

As brexit has proven we could just go a no deal Scotexit.


Please don’t make the mistake of overestimating your hand in this negotiation as well. England doesn’t produce enough Electric or have enough fresh water to survive on its own. Scotland exports both to England. Our Oil also shores up the value of the pound. You need us more than we need you. Why else do you think Westminster fought so hard and put out such a dogged project fear campaign in 2014?

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 16th September 2019, 08:42 AM

"Cornered rats".

Thrre is no UNIFORM WILL of the electorate. Stop that nonsense. The Nazis used that lie to suspend patliament, oop, take emergency powers and cause a coup. Just stop it.

Posted by: Steve201 16th September 2019, 09:23 PM

I'm just raging that SF so poorly negotiated the GFA to leave the future border poll in the hands of the British government - why would they ever WANT to give nationalists a poll!?

Posted by: vidcapper 17th September 2019, 05:05 AM

ISTM the difficulties with attaining Brexit prove just the opposite.

There would be economic, political, legal, etc issues that would have to be drawn up in a formal document, and that is a process that cannot be glossed over.



So now you think Leavers are going to set Westminster on fire, and blame it on Remainers?

Posted by: Common Sense 17th September 2019, 07:58 PM

Swinson and the LD's can promise anything they like as they know, and we know, that they'll never get a majority to implement any of it.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 17th September 2019, 08:22 PM

Same with the Brexshit party.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th September 2019, 05:21 AM

Minor parties don't need power, only influence - as the LD's themselves had 2010-2015.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 18th September 2019, 08:38 AM

Exactly. And Labout will havr to choose between a coalition with Lib Dems revokin a50 or one with the SNP with a second independence ref.

Posted by: vidcapper 18th September 2019, 09:45 AM

So, even you now recognise they will not win outright...

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 18th September 2019, 10:27 AM

The biased disgusting one party state media id constantly on the attack. Constant brainwashing.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 18th September 2019, 10:28 AM

And they basically did win outright last time. The vile disco citizens party was buoyed by Brexshit. Without that, it woulf have been destroyed.

Posted by: Botchia 18th September 2019, 08:51 PM

Lib Dems are only revoking if they are a majority government. Otherwise, their policy is to back the People's Vote and campaign for remain.

Posted by: Steve201 18th September 2019, 10:23 PM

Another problem with the LDs positioning on Brexit is the hypocrisy that they oppose another referendum on Scottish independence only for Brexit!?

Posted by: vidcapper 19th September 2019, 04:46 AM

Change the record, FFS.

Soon people will be complaining you're boring them even more than me over Brexit...

Posted by: Suedehead2 19th September 2019, 07:07 AM

There is a difference between maintaining the status quo (Scotland as part of the UK) and a major constitutional change (leaving the EU). If we do leave, my own view is that Scotland should be allowed another referendum as there would have been a major change since the last one. Similarly, there will have been a major change since the EU referendum - either an actual deal rather than an ill-defined concept or a recognition of the consequences of leaving without a deal.

Posted by: Common Sense 19th September 2019, 07:14 AM

He desperately want to be poster of the week so is whoring all over the forum.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 19th September 2019, 10:40 AM

Comments on the BBTory deflecting from Bojo the Bloat being torpeoed in a hospital? The establishment protects the establishment.

Posted by: Steve201 19th September 2019, 01:46 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/sep/18/caroline-lucas-lib-dems-revoke-and-remain-stance-brexit-is-arrogant

The Greens are annoyed at the stance too.

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 19th September 2019, 02:49 PM

It's no different from Tories anf Brexshit. You can interpret a 50 50 split referendum based on lies and univorns however you want! If it's enough for a hard brexshit, it's enough for revoke and hard remain.

Posted by: Steve201 19th September 2019, 06:11 PM

Exactly so the arguement is that the LDs have moved to the extreme position the tories are in the opposite direction and have abandoned the middle ground.

Even the Greens as above aren't happy so are you a yellow Tory now Algernon? 😝

Posted by: vidcapper 20th September 2019, 04:29 AM

WTF is a 'univorn'?

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 20th September 2019, 06:00 AM

Democracy ended in 2014 for Scotland as far as Unionists are concerned. Have you seen her try and justify her stance under light light light questioning? It was excruciating.


Allowed?

If there’s a referendum or not that’s for the people of Scotland to decide via a Holyrood election, not for England to “allow”. In 2016 the people did decide at Holyrood to support parties that are for indyref2. That mandate from the Scottish people is only thing that matters. Hardly a “union of equals” if we need permission to ask to leave it. Bar is set so much higher for Scotland than any of England’s other colonial properties. Wonder why that would be? *looks knowingly in the direction of Aberdeen*

Posted by: vidcapper 20th September 2019, 07:53 AM

I can't believe some people claim Scots have a chip on their shoulders...

Posted by: Steve201 20th September 2019, 06:20 PM

Hardly a chip the Union has always been an unequal relationship!

Posted by: Algernon Monqueef 20th September 2019, 08:52 PM

Well maybe don't ignore them all the time, say it's a union of equal, promote people who say the Scottish should never be pm to PM, int he same way GBrown was promoted (and the rscist twat screamed and wailed about that, presumably because he was Scottish), and force thrm out based on a split nation split decision referendum?

Posted by: vidcapper 21st September 2019, 04:35 AM

Would it be any more equal if 5.5 million Scots carried the same weight in parliament as 55m English?

Scots carry a weight at least proportionate to their numbers - that they still demand more is where the 'chip' is.

Posted by: Steve201 21st September 2019, 08:55 AM

So let's just end this unequal relationship then!

Posted by: vidcapper 21st September 2019, 09:06 AM

I have no problem with Scottish independence, but I think it naive for people to simultaneously claim that UK independence from the EU will damage the UK, while Scottish independence will magically make the country a utopia...

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 21st September 2019, 09:26 AM

Get in the sea

Posted by: Botchia 7th October 2019, 08:14 PM

Heidi Allen has FINALLY joined *.*

Posted by: Harve 7th October 2019, 08:17 PM

Okay but why did she take so long

Posted by: Botchia 7th October 2019, 08:19 PM

Just be glad she came through in the end x

Posted by: Doctor Blind 7th October 2019, 08:24 PM

LDs have gone from 11 to 19 MPs this year with just 1 by-election. That's twice the gain made at the 2017 GE (from 8 to 12).

Interestingly, Cambridgeshire South looks very likely to swing to Liberal Democrat anyway so this will be a savvy move.

Posted by: Harve 7th October 2019, 09:29 PM

'The Independents' now only have 2 MPs left - Gavin Shuker and John Woodcock - as most of their initial members have now joined the Lib Dems.

The five Change UK MPs are holding strong for now, despite all certain to lose their seats soon. Some (Mike Gapes, Joan Ryan) will be incompatible with the Lib Dems due to their hawkish foreign policy views. I imagine their time in parliament during the Iraq war will have made relations with the Lib Dems sour.

Posted by: Botchia 1st November 2019, 10:58 PM

I'm enjoying all the #debateher promo *.*

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 1st November 2019, 11:56 PM

I don't trust the Fib-Dems an inch. Swinson says she'd never work with Corbyn but bet you anything she would if i meant she could be Deputy PM with a ministerial Jag.

Posted by: Rooney 2nd November 2019, 12:18 AM

They would work with a more moderate leader, but not under Corbyn. Likewise I don't think Corbyn would work with the Lib Dems.

It's taken them a long time to rid the stigma of what happened 8-9 years ago, they would be foolish to repeat the same mistakes.

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 2nd November 2019, 12:27 AM

So do you think they'd refuse to work with Corbyn if he had just a few more seats than Boris? Would they rather let Boris back than go with Corbyn. Can't see him stepping down just to please them.

Posted by: vidcapper 2nd November 2019, 05:44 AM

Maybe they'd offer a deal like the DUP did for the Tories - a 'no screwing you over', oh wait...

Posted by: Big Boobs Vjaay 2nd November 2019, 09:47 AM

You do realise the Lib Dems have said, we'd work with any lesder but not Milliband, Brown, and now Corbyn? They always day it. What they mean is they eant to work with other neolibetals, i.e Tories.

Posted by: Rooney 2nd November 2019, 12:23 PM

I suspect they would prop up a Labour government if it meant getting a new leader, but I don't think Corbyn would agree to that. There is a lot of bad blood between both sides right now, let's not forget that a lot of MPs have deflected to the Lib Dems from Labour for example who were prominent criticisers of Corbyn..

Posted by: Tones and Iz 2nd November 2019, 12:47 PM

And even more former Tories who are critics of Johnson. The Lib Dems really can't work with the Tories, I have no worries on that front while the primary topic of discussion is Brexit, if they were stupid enough to agree and take their position away from Remain it would wipe them out for good.

Far more likely that they do end up propping up a Corbyn government for a time, if they are needed when the cards fall, but it would only be a temporary agreement.

Posted by: Botchia 2nd November 2019, 02:15 PM

There isn't a chance the current Lib Dems would ever work with the current Tories - they're too far apart. 2010 was different as the Tories under DC were more centre. And I suspect the Lib Dems will make sure not to repeat the mistakes of the past and avoid a coalition at all costs and opt for confidence and supply if we're talking about propping up a Labour government. Even then, I think they'd only do this if Corbyn agreed to step down for a more Remain friendly leader like Keir Starmer or Emily Thornberry.

Having said that, I think a Labour / SNP coalition would be the most likely combination if we end up with Labour and the Tories both short and not far apart.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th November 2019, 06:16 AM

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1199490/General-Election-news-Jo-Swinson-Sophy-Ridge-Lib-Dem-Liberal-Democrat-poll-polls

Jo Swinson humiliated as Sophy Ridge unveils hugely 'misleading' Liberal Democrat poll

LIBERAL DEMOCRAT Leader Jo Swinson was left red-faced after Sky News presenter Sophy Ridge displayed a poll from the party’s campaign literature.

****************************

This doesn't surprise me at all - they're always doing this sort of thing in Cheltenham.

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 4th November 2019, 07:55 AM

Corbyn won't want to stand down if they have most seats and he can become PM. Would you? He may go with the SNP as you say or try and run a minority government if they're just a few seats short and then call another election next spring after Brexit's no longer a hot all-consuming topic.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th November 2019, 08:12 AM

He could *call* for a GE, but he wouldn't have the numbers to *force* one...

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 4th November 2019, 08:14 AM

No you're right there.

Posted by: vidcapper 4th November 2019, 08:54 AM

And if he *did* have the numbers, he wouldn't *need* to call one!

Posted by: Tones and Iz 4th November 2019, 09:01 AM

And Lib Dem polls is a meme, I think that's fairly common knowledge if you've ever lived in a seat where Lib Dems are prominent. It's dishonest tactics, I don't like it, but an effective strategy to keep them in the conversation, they're constantly doing work against the mainstream 'who do you want to be Prime Minister' vote to even get people to vote for them. Stats aside, it will force the voters to think on a constituency level and that benefits LDs.

This is definitely one of their more egregious examples though, at least based on 2017 data. Argument to be made that in a rural seat like NE Somerset where it's safe Con that with the right framing, enough Con voters can be converted to Lib, and enough Lab voters convinced to vote Lib also to allow a Lib victory while the numbers would just be never there for Labour.

Posted by: Tones and Iz 4th November 2019, 09:06 AM

In addition, that particular little possibility is why I'm having such trouble deciding my vote as in my constituency the numbers are rather similar to NE Somerset but with slightly stronger Lib + Lab, slightly weaker Con.

Posted by: Suedehead2 7th November 2019, 10:00 PM

In an interesting development, Stephen Lloyd has been accepted back into the Lib Dem fold. He will be contesting Eastbourne on the Lib Dem promise to revoke Article 50. He feels he has fulfilled his 2017 pledge to support a deal and can now move on.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2019, 05:47 AM

Doesn't Eastbourne have a lot of (usually-Brexit-supporting) older people though?

Posted by: vidcapper 8th November 2019, 06:22 AM

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/nov/07/jo-swinson-tactical-voting-general-election

Beware of dodgy tactical voting sites – they’re the last resort of outmoded centrists

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 8th November 2019, 08:47 AM

Yes it does. People sell up and go to retire down there and relax by the sea. Three of my mum's friends did as soon as they were widowed. Brighton's similar. Bungalows are like hot-cakes in both places and are snapped up if they ever come on sale.

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th November 2019, 10:52 AM

Brighton is very different from Eastbourne.

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 8th November 2019, 04:09 PM

In what way? Both on South Coast and both where elderly go to retire. I'd say more go to Bournemouth though so do you mean that?

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th November 2019, 05:17 PM

Wrong again. The average of a a Bournemouth resident is below the national average.

As for Brighton, yes people do retire here, but far more go to Eastbourne,

Having lived in both Bournemouth and Brighton, I think I can just about tell the difference.

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 10th November 2019, 05:23 PM

Jo Swinson is bringing the Lib Dem lawyers in as she hasn't been included in a debate on the BBC and an ITV one too. Both will show one with just Corbyn and Boris, as they can so long as they give her equal airtime on other debates which they will do. She's saying they're being sexist but the same was done in 2015 and 2017 so both can show that to prove that's not the case. She will be on debates with all the party leaders.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 10th November 2019, 10:20 PM

She’s no problems with Sky tho for including her but excluding the 3rd largest party by membership and seats. The sooner people on here and in England wake up to the fact that all Jo Swinson cares about is what is best for Jo Swinson, the better.

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 10th November 2019, 10:51 PM

Oh don't worry I realise that. Anyway let's show deference to the next UK Prime Minister.

Posted by: Doctor Sleep 12th November 2019, 07:43 PM

Lib Dems have stood down in Canterbury.

Not a national policy but perhaps the start of a remain alliance flexing its muscle?

Posted by: Big Boobs Vjay! 12th November 2019, 07:48 PM

Yes!! Ego maniac Joe will be FURIOUS.

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th November 2019, 08:14 PM

Who’s Joe?

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th November 2019, 08:16 PM

I saw Rosie Duffield speak at a rally in Brighton in September at an anti-Leave event. I was very impressed with her.

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 12th November 2019, 08:20 PM

They should have chosen Ed Davey as leader.

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 12th November 2019, 08:21 PM

Think he means Jo Swinson.

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th November 2019, 08:29 PM

Why?

Posted by: Doctor Sleep 12th November 2019, 08:55 PM

False alarm. The Lib Dems are still going to stand, just someone different.

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th November 2019, 08:59 PM

Maybe the original candidate should have left it until close of nominations on Thursday.

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 12th November 2019, 09:14 PM

Swinson's too awkward. Wouldn't go in to coalition with labour with Corbyn as PM for example.

Posted by: Big Boobs Vjay! 12th November 2019, 09:28 PM

Big Ego Joe strikes again! He should have waited a few days.

Posted by: blacksquare 12th November 2019, 09:31 PM

How ridiculous, and terrible optics.

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 12th November 2019, 09:35 PM

It's JO without the E if you mean Swinson.

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th November 2019, 10:18 PM

Neither would Ed Davey.

Posted by: vidcapper 13th November 2019, 06:12 AM

A relatively small SNP surge could see JS defeated anyway...

Posted by: Freddie Kruger 13th November 2019, 08:22 AM

She only has a 5,553 majority and her seat was SNP from 2015 to 2017 but she held it from 2005 to 2015.

Posted by: vidcapper 16th November 2019, 03:46 PM

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/16/lib-dems-criticised-for-selective-use-of-polling-data-on-leaflets

Yet people claim here that only the Tories lie and manipulate...

Posted by: Suedehead2 16th November 2019, 04:09 PM

That’s distortion, not outright lying. There is a big difference. I agree that some examples are decidedly lacking in honesty, but it’s still not outright lying. In my constituency the Greens have a bar chart showing them ahead with the Lib Dems second. Look closely and you see it shows the European election results across all three Brighton and Hove constituencies.

Posted by: common sense 16th November 2019, 08:36 PM

Vince Cable predicts the election will end in a hung parliament, sparking a referendum and another general election.

The former leader of the Liberal Democrats said there is a “one in a million” chance that Jeremy Corbyn will become prime minister. “The idea of Jeremy Corbyn winning and becoming Prime Minister, one in a million. It’s not going to happen,” Cable told Sophy Ridge on Sky News. “I think we’re faced with either a Johnson majority, it could happen. Although I think more likely, no majority, but hung in a different way, with more of us and more SNP.”

When asked if Corbyn gets into Number 10 in the event of a hung parliament, Vince said: “No it doesn’t and we’ve been absolutely clear we couldn’t possibly allow that to happen.

“It would probably be some more neutral figure and then leading into a referendum to resolve the Brexit issue and another General Election soon after that.”

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th November 2019, 01:04 PM

Today would have been Charles Kennedy's 60th birthday. He is still much missed

Posted by: common sense 25th November 2019, 03:40 PM

Yes indeed. A good Lib-Dem leader. The last three, Farron, Cable and Swinson have been useless.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th November 2019, 03:42 PM

Hundreds of gains in the local elections and second place in the European elections is hardly useless.

Posted by: ElectroBoy 25th November 2019, 03:43 PM

Agreed Cable was great.

Although I think after a good start, the wheels have come off for Swimson a bit. I think her time in government propping up the Tories is going against her quite a bit

Posted by: common sense 25th November 2019, 03:54 PM

Let's see how many gains they get this time. I bet not many. In fact people on the ground say they're struggling in Sheffield Hallam as well as Devon and Cornwall.

Seems they'll definitely take Zac Goldsmith's seat as they're polling 20 points ahead of him at present but that's probably more a protest against him.

Posted by: Tawdry Hepburn 25th November 2019, 03:59 PM

That's the thing I got from her part of the Leader's Debate on Friday night, when your voting record is that indefensible you don't exactly have a lot of room to maneuver your way around it. Her attempts at seeming remorseful were unconvincing and I just didn't buy it - she'd totally do it all over again.

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th November 2019, 04:08 PM

Oh dear, do I have to repeat myself yet again?

In order to enter into a coalition with anyone, the deal has to be supported by Lib Dem members. The chances of the members agreeing to a deal with a party committed to taking us out of the EU are zero. It simply won't happen.

Posted by: Doctor Sleep 25th November 2019, 04:20 PM

Seems to be quite true according to those on the ground campaigning though...

Posted by: Big Boobs Vjay! 25th November 2019, 04:29 PM

The Lib Dems are atrocious. A vote for them is a vote for Bojo.

Posted by: vidcapper 25th November 2019, 04:44 PM

Finally - something we agree on!

Posted by: Suedehead2 25th November 2019, 05:15 PM

How? As I have explained many times (including just now), the chances of a deal between the Lib Dems and Tories are ZERO.

Posted by: Big Boobs Vjay! 25th November 2019, 05:17 PM

Yes and they can still get through the middle by Lib Dems contesting Labour seats!!

Posted by: Harve 25th November 2019, 05:47 PM

The exact same applies to Labour contesting Yeovil, North Norfolk, Richmond Park and dozens in between.

Posted by: Doctor Sleep 25th November 2019, 05:51 PM

It does, however there are many more Lab-Con marginals than Lib-Con. Therefore the Tories will be hoping that the remain vote is nicely split to allow them to obtain a majority.

Posted by: Big Boobs Vjay! 25th November 2019, 06:04 PM

Labour should have stopped contesting those seats even before Farage did the INEVITABLE. If I knew this sub 5% Farage result and the Tory pact was coming ... why didn't the Labour top brass? But they just don't trust Tory Jo. If they had a better leader, one that's not a yellow Tory, then they would have been able to do a pact. Well, if the Lib Dems had a better leader, then this Tory favouring election wouldn't even be happening. They would be in a temporary government for a second referendum, Bojo would have been deposed, and the election afterwards would have been under wildly different circumstances:

1. BBTory reigned in
2. Bojo embarrassed and shortest reigning pm ever
3. People seeing that the sky won't fall with Corbyn in no.10.
4. Tory brexit not passing at all.

Posted by: common sense 25th November 2019, 06:18 PM

And me too. This must be a first.

Posted by: Doctor Sleep 25th November 2019, 10:33 PM

Swinson definitely appears to be polling lower the more the public see of her, so maybe not being in the ITV debate last week worked in her favour? :shrug:

Posted by: vidcapper 26th November 2019, 10:12 AM

Iain Dale Is Forced To Correct Lib Dem MEP ENTIRELY Over Johnson's Brexit Deal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXgV6BY2qWY

Posted by: blacksquare 26th November 2019, 12:55 PM

Police and Crime Commissioner election...

Posted by: ElectroBoy 26th November 2019, 01:07 PM

I had a similar poll in a leaflet sent out in Chelmsford claiming it was between Lib Dem and the Tories

However in the last election (in fact 2 elections) Lib Dem have been a distant 3rd and Labour have made gains the last 2 years and in 2nd place.

Posted by: 5 Silas Frøkner 26th November 2019, 06:39 PM

Actually, both are part right and part wrong. She’s right that this is no deal in all but name because it plays brinkmanship with the future relationship and the modeling on the future relationship in the deal shows a catastrophic loss to GDP. He’s right that if the deal passes there isn’t immediate disruption but he’s either thick or being deliberately misleading as the deal triggers a transition period where we are a quasi EU state and this disruption is pushed out to the end of the transition period. She is correct that the future relationship as stated in the deal requires customs checks and quite significant congestion at border crossings GB-EU


Why is it that we’re the only ones willing to think critically about information presented to us and you just parrot absolute horseshit with no thought process. Bet that you completely ignore the valid points above because it doesn’t mean your preconceived perceptions and just focus on this paragraph because that is all you’re capable of. You can refute logic and facts with your spin and lies. You know your position is indefensible and yet here we are day after day

Posted by: Brett-Butler 1st December 2019, 10:10 PM

The Lib Dems have suspended a senior staff member after he tried to suppress a story about the party selling data to the Remain campaign in 2016 by investigative journalism site openDemocracy by forging an email and threatening them with legal action. You can read the full account of it https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/what-are-jo-swinsons-liberal-democrats-so-desperate-to-hide/.

Posted by: Suedehead2 2nd December 2019, 02:57 PM

At least they have (correctly) acted quickly over this. Meanwhile, the Tories responsible for the least honest campaign in living memory are still in their posts.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th December 2019, 09:17 PM

Just here to say that my Nan (86) who was originally from Austria and came over to the UK in the 1940s told me that she voted Liberal Democrat in her postal vote - she lives in Tunbridge Wells which is a Lab/Con marginal. I was most displeased at this news.

Posted by: Crazy Chris-tmas 9th December 2019, 09:33 PM

They may not be in 96 hours time.

Posted by: Crazy Chris-tmas 9th December 2019, 09:33 PM

She must be a Remainer then.

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th December 2019, 10:27 PM

I wouldn't call a 16,500 majority marginal. The Lib Dems briefly put up a decent challenge in Tunbridge Wells and Labour only pulled ahead of them in 2015.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th December 2019, 10:51 PM

Apologies, I meant a Tory seat in which Labour came second. Yeah there is no chance of dislodging Greg Clark but hopefully he continues to vote against the government however!

Posted by: Crazy Chris-tmas 9th December 2019, 10:58 PM

All prospective Tory candidates, including ones who were MP's, have had to agree in writing to Central Office, to vote with the government for Boris's deal but don't know about anything else.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 9th December 2019, 10:59 PM

Means bugger all Chris, once he's got his seat he can just vote against and, oh-no, lose the whip (like last time). Oh that 'll be so terrible/make no difference whatsoever.

Posted by: Crazy Chris-tmas 9th December 2019, 11:02 PM

All MP's are ambitious though and want to become ministers or enter the hallowed cabinet. Not a good way to go about it to annoy the PM.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th December 2019, 08:00 AM

No they aren’t. Some are perfectly prepared to serve their constituents with no expectation of ministerial office.

Posted by: vidsanta 10th December 2019, 08:47 AM

Can you name one offhand?

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th December 2019, 10:07 AM

Any Lib Dem for decades until 2010. Denis Skinner.

Posted by: vidsanta 10th December 2019, 10:35 AM

OK, I'll give you Skinner, but not the LD's, from the example we had here in Cheltenham.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th December 2019, 12:46 PM

Read what I said. Are you seriously suggesting every Lib Dem MP in the 1940s to the 2000s seriously thought they would be a minister?

Posted by: Crazy Chris-tmas 10th December 2019, 02:13 PM

I meant WANTED to be a minister, aspired to become one though. Obviously if their party never gets in to government they can't.

Posted by: Suedehead2 10th December 2019, 05:06 PM

If they were so keen to be a minister, they would have joined another party. Surely you can understand that.

Posted by: Crazy Chris-tmas 10th December 2019, 05:55 PM

Of course I understand that.

Posted by: vidsanta 12th December 2019, 07:37 AM

It's not just the LD's...

Just having a last look at the election leaflets, and I noticed that the Green Party one quoted a Tewkesbury Borough Council result for *one* ward, with them winning on just 34% of the vote, using this to try and justify the claim 'we can win in Tewkesbury' despite getting just 2.7% in the GE last time.

Posted by: Suedehead2 12th December 2019, 08:09 AM

All parties have done it. Some of the bar charts are more valid than others. Bar charts are a perfectly good way of illustrating a point; it’s a pity they have been abused so much that many people will now ignore even the more legitimate ones.

Posted by: December Dong 12th December 2019, 11:28 AM

And 88% od the Tory facebook ads are lies. Facebook was so concerned with the volume, they took some down and google did the same! Zuckerberg's fault for allowing it to happen to protect the right wing tax-lenient govs and take away one of the left's greatest platforms, forcing people back to the right wing neolib media. I say that's far worse than a couple of leaflet fibs.

Posted by: vidcapper 8th January 2020, 07:23 AM

They just don't give up...

Lib Dems to push for a public inquiry into the EU referendum and Brexit

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/ed-davey-calls-for-public-inquiry-into-brexit-1-6452000

*************************

Yes, they have a job to do in the HoC, but in their feeble position, it just looks like sour grapes.

Posted by: Crazy Chris 8th January 2020, 07:55 AM

Of course it's sour grapes. They'll try anything to stop Brexit.

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th January 2020, 08:08 AM

There remains plenty of evidence that the Leave campaign broke the law and that there was foreign interference. If you disagree, why are you so worried about the prospect of a thorough investigation?

Posted by: vidcapper 8th January 2020, 08:21 AM

Personally I don't mind either way, but with Boris's HoC majority, there's not a snowball in hell's chance of the LD's amendments passing.

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th January 2020, 04:19 PM

So the two so-called democracies where it is particularly difficult to hold the government to account for potential breaches of the law are the UK and the US. It is, of course, no coincidence that both countries use FPTP.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th January 2020, 05:47 AM

Surely that's better than the stagnation of a hung parliament, though?

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th January 2020, 08:14 AM

Most European countries always have parliaments where no single party has a majority. They seem to manage.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th January 2020, 09:15 AM

Possibly because they have given away much of their power to the EU?

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th January 2020, 09:28 AM

FFS, what has the EU got to do with anything? In most cases, the opposite is true. Belgium was able to go without a government for a year because so much power is devolved downwards.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th January 2020, 10:08 AM

IMO the threat to sovereignty is why a lot of people voted for Brexit in the first place. Unlike you, we don't believe the unquantified 'benefits' outweigh the drawbacks.

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th January 2020, 10:13 AM

Wrong. Many of us simply don't buy the "threat to sovereignty" argument. The existence of a veto renders that argument nonsense.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th January 2020, 11:00 AM

Then we'll just have to agree to differ on that.

Regards

Posted by: ChRiMbO LeG PiPe 9th January 2020, 12:39 PM

And you are simply wrong.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th January 2020, 02:19 PM

Then we'll just have to agree to differ on that.

Seriously though, you cannot prove that I don't believe what I said.

Posted by: Suedehead2 9th January 2020, 03:15 PM

You are free to believe in unicorns if you wish. It doesn't alter the fact that they don't exist.

Posted by: vidcapper 9th January 2020, 03:33 PM

WTF do unicorns have to do with anything?

Posted by: Steve201 10th January 2020, 08:33 PM

You can believe there's a threat to democracy but as has been pointed out he veto means your points is wrong.

Posted by: Iz~ 30th August 2020, 11:20 AM

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-davey-boris-johnson-dominic-cummings-culture-war-trans-rights-rule-britannia-a9695326.html

Ed Davey's first order of business appears to be a rather sensible statement of warning everyone away from the culture war trap that Cummings and Johnson are trying to push upon progressives.

Also a listening tour around community centres and shopping malls to try and lay foundations for Lib Dem support, amusing even if it shows signs of trying to rescue his party through a policy drive. Article likens it to doing a Paddy Ashdown, and best of luck to him in coming anywhere near close to that I suppose.

Posted by: Suedehead2 30th August 2020, 11:26 AM

Unfortunately, Ed Davey doesn't come close to having Paddy Ashdown's charisma. It's going to be incredibly difficult to get the message across for as long as Covid dominates the agenda. Even the time-honoured practice of leafletting to attempt to make up for a lack of media coverage has had to be put on hold for months.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th September 2020, 12:40 PM

Also Ed Davey voted AGAINST a Customs Union (the only Lib Dem to do so) in the indicative votes on 1 April 2019, along with Change UK (remember them?) and Caroline Lucas in a vote that lost by 3.

I will remember that for a long time.

Posted by: Quarantilas 8th September 2020, 01:57 PM

After 2010 I will never trust a LibDem again. Their actions since have done little to persuade me otherwise. Now they have quietly abandoned their pro-EU stance.

Only pro-EU parties left are the Celtic independence concerns: SNP, Plaid, Greens (Sco)

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th September 2020, 02:13 PM

Hang on. The Lib Dems were crucified here for sticking to pro-European principles at the last election. Now that there is a shift towards a pragmatic wait-and-see approach (which may yet move to a full-blown Rejoin policy by the next election), they are being crucified again.

I would love to rejoin the EU this week (although I would be prepared to wait until next week if necessary). However, that isn't an option. We have no idea how much damage this government will have caused by the next election and how many EU entry requirements we will no longer fulfil. The priority has to be to get rid of the incompetent shower currently in power.

Oh, and the party has NOT abandoned its pro-EU stance. The membership is overwhelmingly pro-EU and that is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th September 2020, 02:20 PM

Opportunism. Just like with Tuition Fees - when it paid to be divisive and polarising they were - now that they are languishing at 6% in the polls, soon to be overtaken by the Green Party and suddenly it's unimportant.

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th September 2020, 02:51 PM

Yawn. OTOH, perhaps this is the time to remind people of Labour's two betrayals over tuition fees. Or Iraq. To repeat, the priority is to put an end to the shitshow that calls itself a government.

Posted by: Doctor Blind 8th September 2020, 02:54 PM

I am not, and nor have I ever been, part of the Labour Party. I actually voted Lib Dem in 2005 and 2010 so I am very au fait with their betrayal on Iraq and Tuition Fees.

If there is a slight difference between the two parties (and in light of the disgraceful comments at the dispatch box today) I'd say that the Labour Party is opportunistic in a very specific and limited way.

Posted by: Quarantilas 8th September 2020, 05:14 PM

I never crucified them for their previous pro-EU platform, just their utter absurd position of being in favour of a second EURef but not Indyref2. We all saw the consequences Swinson faced for that stunning interpretation of democracy. As a supporter and voter of an explicitly pro-EU party I have no grounds to bring down the platform.

Just because we can’t rejoin tomorrow because they’re not the Gov doesn’t mean it should be abandoned as policy. Especially when you have a defacto referendum in May 2021 in Scotland and a LibDem party that has abandoned (even temporarily) it’s pro-EU stance leaves that 62% remain vote with only one real choice. Stunning own goal in the run up to Holyrood. Effectively resigned to 5th place in what a naive hope to claw back some votes in Wales? Are English councils electing next year as well?

Posted by: Suedehead2 8th September 2020, 06:58 PM

To repeat, the Lib Dems have NOT abandoned their pro-EU stance. The chances of being able to start the process of rejoining before 2024 are close to zero. That is the reality so a wait-and-see approach seems reasonable. It's certainly a better approach than Corbyn's at the last election (whatever that actually was).

Posted by: Quarantilas 21st September 2020, 01:56 PM

And I ooop

Posted by: Suedehead2 21st September 2020, 02:27 PM

First, the headline is misleading. The motion simple leaves all the options open and explicitly includes the possibility of re-joining. There will be amendments attempting to make that a firmer commitment to make re-joining a priority.

If the Fixed Term Parliament Act remains in place, the next election campaign will start in almost exactly three-and-a-half years. Who knows what this ghastly crew will have done by then? They may well have made rejoining in the course of a single parliament next to impossible. There are a lot of people (including many in the Labour party) who favour the idea of promoting a short-term government whose sole priority is to replace our corrupt electoral system. If that happens, EU membership will not be an issue at the next election. OTOH, leaving the EU may have proved to be such a disaster that Labour and the Lib Dems both run on an explicitly pro-rejoin platform even if it will take more than one parliament to get there.

Posted by: Suedehead2 27th September 2020, 06:53 PM

The Lib Dem conference has passed (by an overwhelming majority) an amendment to "support a longer term objective of UK membership of the EU".

I have a suspicion that the party apparatchiks deliberately left such a commitment out of the original motion fully aware that conference conference would vote to put one in. It means that the party has voted for that commitment specifically and clearly rather than as part of a longer motion.

Posted by: Smint 19th September 2021, 09:52 PM

Well he might be a grower rather than a shower but Ed Davey is doing really well at the moment. Actually winning a Tory seat in Chesham (as opposed to Batley where Labour held), being unequivocally for Trans right and actually saying what the Tories are in this fantastic speech.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/19/lib-dems-can-take-away-boris-johnsons-majority-says-ed-davey

If you are a minority in Labour, all Starmer will do is throw you under the bus. We’ll see what his exciting vision is like in due course but not holding my breath…

Posted by: steve201 19th September 2021, 10:22 PM

He knows Labour is moving to the centre so is moving to the left of them like the liberals always do in these circumstances!

Posted by: Smint 19th September 2021, 10:33 PM

Well the examples I gave are just basic human decency, morality and human rights for all. What a sad state our country has become if that is not where the "centre" of Britain is at.

Posted by: Suedehead2 20th September 2021, 05:39 AM

Ed Dave is returning to the Paddy Ashdown tactic of concentrating fire on the Tories instead of trying to attack two other parties at once. This makes sense. Not only are the Tories in power but 80 of the 91 seats where the Lib Dems came second in 2019 are held by Tory MPs.

Posted by: Rooney 20th September 2021, 08:51 AM

It's a solid tactic and usually when the Lib Dems do well, Labour does well so let's see it if it has any affect. There are holes in a lot of those Tory seats in the south which are more affluent.

Must say, reading back in this thread I was a little shocked to see people giving the Lib Dems such a hard time over lessening their Re-join the EU stance. We are not rejoining the EU within the next 5 years, and it's unlikely to be even on the cards for the next 10 years. The last election told us the electorate was bored by Brexit and wanted it done. I don't see how saying 'we need to the EU' at every given opportunity is a good look to win back voters over the next 12-18 months. It's abundantly clear to me even that the Party is still massively Pro-EU, but there is a time and a place for that tactic and it's not right now. Plant the seeds that the issues are related to Brexit, but campaigning to re-join the EU would be a massive mistake publicly.

Posted by: Snakin' Stevens 14th December 2021, 07:30 PM

With the Lib Dems siding with the Tory CRG rebels to vote against the Covid Passes, my support for the Lib Dems in this upcoming by-election is rather ambivalent.

Posted by: Suedehead2 14th December 2021, 08:46 PM

The fact that the three-times vaccinated Ed Davey tested positive for Covid today shows why I don't see the point of Covid passes.

Posted by: Smint 14th December 2021, 09:38 PM

Plus the Tories are trying to destroy our NHS, legal system, right to protest, human rights for refugees and have ruined our economy with ultra hard Brexit. Not to mention their corruption. To be ambivalent about them losing a seat on Thursday is something I can’t agree with. They are the most despicable government and need to be taught a lesson.

Posted by: Botchia 14th December 2021, 10:41 PM

In fairness, if I understood correctly, the Lib Dems don't oppose the policy of negative lateral flow tests being required for entry to big events / night clubs, only the exemption for people with the so-called vaccine passport from having to take one for entry.

Posted by: Quarantilas 14th December 2021, 11:26 PM

mRNA breakthrough rates (pre-Omricon) were 0,05% for BioNTech and 0,03% for Moderna in Germany in late November: https://www.rbb24.de/panorama/thema/corona/beitraege/2021/11/impfstoffe-moderna-biontech-vergleich-wirkung-fragen-antworten.html

1,01% and 0,41% in Switzerland for the same vaccines.


Breakthrough infections are extremely rare and remain the exception not the rule, so a VaxPass is an extremely effective public health measure. We have had them in place since March or April and it broke the 3rd wave and it is breaking the 4th wave too. The new 2G rules mean that it is finally properly enforced in Berlin and it is such a joy. Was at a 2G+ xmas market on Friday and they had automated scanners to check the validity, it was superb. (We had to wear masks, hence the 2G+ rather than 2G)



I don't understand how so many Brits are against them or don't see the point in them when countless countries have data that shows they do work and they a great way to avoid a lockdown. The amount of crap i see on my social media about the half assed Scottish one is infuriating. (the weak nature of Scotlands is also irritating)


I guess part of it is that its harder to see some of the benefits to the system when you're outside of it.

Posted by: Christmasteve201 15th December 2021, 08:29 AM

It’s a political ideological argument and the usual suspects in the Tory right are raging at the gills. I’m surprised the Lib Dems are opposed but maybe should have known better!

Posted by: Smint 15th December 2021, 09:33 AM

Lib Dem traditionally take a libertariran stance to matters such as this whilst Labour is more authouritarian (especially the Blair wing). I'm glad that this has caused Johnson embarrassment, although not bothered either way about vaccine passports. But the Tories tha voted for no mask legislation are dangerous psychopaths.

Posted by: steve201 25th September 2023, 10:44 PM

Bringing this topic back because I expect the Lib Dem’s to double their seats i the next election which could be within the year. Ed Davey is leading the conference this week if you didn’t know it was on and the members voted down the leadership on a number of policies that they aren’t happy with party direction.

Seems that Ed is turning the party centre right in order to have a chance of breaking the blue wall next year.

Posted by: Christmasteve201 3rd January 2024, 07:02 PM

Ed Davey was out in front of a removal service for tories banner this morning. Funny that Ed because you and your cronies helped them into power in 2010.

Posted by: Auld Lang Peen 3rd January 2024, 07:15 PM

Yeah, they're just ... awful! Party of ineffective neolib capitalists. They also caused Brexshit as well, as far as I'm concerned, by siding wirh Blojo for an ego election for Jo.

Posted by: Suedehead2 3rd January 2024, 11:55 PM

The Lib Dems' biggest contributions in recent months has been their use of FOI legislation.They have been putting out countless press releases about issues such as NHS waiting lists, dumping of shit into rivers etc.

Posted by: Smint 4th January 2024, 11:51 AM

Although the Lib Dems have, perhaps inevitably, gone quiet about re-joining the EU, they have more progressive policies than the main two parties about trans rights, asylum and disability. They get absolutely no coverage in the press - partly due to the lack of interest in the leader (although the last one, arguably two) had more negative than reactions than positives. But I think it's mainly because the media is even more partisan than 10 years or so ago.

Hope they get shed loads of seats off the Tories in their preferred areas.

Posted by: Christmasteve201 4th January 2024, 07:39 PM

They have more progreeeive policies simply because Labour have moved to the right so they will the left gap like they did under Blair. We all know they manoeuvre round that centrist position depending on the leader/who the PM is.