An opinion poll released the other day shows the Lib Dems have plummetted to 12% in the opinion polls, their lowest rating since 2007 when Menzies Campbell was still leader and which would almost wipe them out in the Commons, reducing them to less than 15 seats - Labour are projected to feast on their seats in Scotland and northern England while the Tories would take almost all their seats in the south.

 

There's honestly no telling what's going to happen with this party over the next couple of years. Will the party members force them to withdraw from the Coalition at the party conference in September? Will Clegg be forced to resign as leader? Will the party split into two?

 

Incidentally, the same opinion poll puts the Tories on 42% and Labour on 38%, which would translate into 312 seats for the Tories and 302 for Labour - still a hung parliament.

I'm not surprised. The Lib Dems really let down their voters :(

A lot of their Scottish seats are quite safe tho, even from labour and the Tories.

I'd love to see them totally wiped out :arrr:

 

 

 

I'm not surprised. The Lib Dems really let down their voters :(

 

This.

 

You can say the coalition was "their only option" (even though it wasn't) all you want, but the fact is people who vote Liberal clearly aren't going to agree with the majority of Tory views. They are sellouts who will not be receiving my vote again in future.

That'll teach the quislings!

Cant say I'm the slightest bit surprised... They betrayed their voters, simple as, and now they're reaping the bitter harvest. Fukk them, I'll certainly never vote for them again, the Boy Clegg is nothing more than just another empty suit of hot air, him and Cameron are well matched really. Charles Kennedy must be p!ssing himself laughing though..... :lol:

The Lib Dems at the moment are a good party headed by awful people. I'd probably go back to having them as a party to rival my vote for Labour once the Orange Bookers get kicked out as they inevitably will post-slump...

I wonder how many of the Liberals in the cabinet will now 'defect' to the Conservatives now that it looks likely that they will be wiped out at the next election? They say once you've tasted power, you'll go anything to keep sucking it's sweet, sweet nectar.

 

The ConDem Alliance was never going to be more than a temporary answer, the sooner we get a re-election the better.

A lot of their Scottish seats are quite safe tho, even from labour and the Tories.

 

You sure about that? The current polling shows that Danny Alexander, Michael Moore and possibly even Menzies Campbell could all lose their seats. The problem for them is that almost all Lib Dem voters from Scotland/Wales/northern England voted for them because they thought they were to the LEFT of Labour, so are clearly going to abandon them now they're bringing in cuts which will affect them. Lib Dem voters in the south are more to the right and so may well approve of what the government is doing, but it's hard to see why those people won't just vote Tory in the future.

 

The problem for the Lib Dems is that they idiotically fell into Cameron's trap. In most European coalitions, the junior partner gets near-full control of certain departments so that they have a distinctive identity in the government - and so, likewise, I expected that in this coalition, Clegg might have been made Home Secretary and another Lib Dem made Education Secretary with Lib Dems filling out both the entire departments, meaning they could've got all the credit for whatever reforms happened in education and civil liberties, immigration etc, meaning the party could've taken a small but distinctive list of their achievements in government into the next election. But instead, Lib Dems have just been given ceremonial roles in all departments while making them junior to Tory ministers (Cable and Alexander are obviously junior to Osborne on the economy), which means Cameron has dipped the Lib Dems' fingers in blood in ALL of the government's policies, while leaving them none which are completely their own and which they can take all the credit for.The crucial thing is that, if the government is popular then the Tories will take all the rewards at the next election, but if the government is unpopular, both the Tories AND the Lib Dems will be hammered. Eitherway, it's a no-win situation for the Lib Dems, and that's why I expect them to pull out of the Coalition after next year's AV referendum.

There's a long way to go to the next General Election. Could be 4 years 9 months still. Anything can happen in that time and polls now mean nothing.

 

I can't see them pulling out if the AV Referendum IS lost. How would that make them look to the electorate? They couldn't get their own way on the one policy so they threw their toys out of the pram. :rolleyes:

Edited August 3, 201014 yr by Common Sense

You sure about that? The current polling shows that Danny Alexander, Michael Moore and possibly even Menzies Campbell could all lose their seats. The problem for them is that almost all Lib Dem voters from Scotland/Wales/northern England voted for them because they thought they were to the LEFT of Labour, so are clearly going to abandon them now they're bringing in cuts which will affect them. Lib Dem voters in the south are more to the right and so may well approve of what the government is doing, but it's hard to see why those people won't just vote Tory in the future.

 

The problem for the Lib Dems is that they idiotically fell into Cameron's trap. In most European coalitions, the junior partner gets near-full control of certain departments so that they have a distinctive identity in the government - and so, likewise, I expected that in this coalition, Clegg might have been made Home Secretary and another Lib Dem made Education Secretary with Lib Dems filling out both the entire departments, meaning they could've got all the credit for whatever reforms happened in education and civil liberties, immigration etc, meaning the party could've taken a small but distinctive list of their achievements in government into the next election. But instead, Lib Dems have just been given ceremonial roles in all departments while making them junior to Tory ministers (Cable and Alexander are obviously junior to Osborne on the economy), which means Cameron has dipped the Lib Dems' fingers in blood in ALL of the government's policies, while leaving them none which are completely their own and which they can take all the credit for.The crucial thing is that, if the government is popular then the Tories will take all the rewards at the next election, but if the government is unpopular, both the Tories AND the Lib Dems will be hammered. Eitherway, it's a no-win situation for the Lib Dems, and that's why I expect them to pull out of the Coalition after next year's AV referendum.

Ming losing control of my seat requires a bloody big shift, and it'd be the Tories who gain that one as the Lib Dem vote will be split between Labour and the c**ts with UKIP picking up a few people.

 

 

They really have been stiffed which is unfortunate, but typical of the tories.

This.

 

You can say the coalition was "their only option" (even though it wasn't) all you want, but the fact is people who vote Liberal clearly aren't going to agree with the majority of Tory views. They are sellouts who will not be receiving my vote again in future.

What other options were there? The only two party combinations which would have got a majority were Con/Lab (unlikely although it has happened in many councils) or Con/Lib Dem. The Libe Dems could have refused to do a deal with anyone but that would probably have led to another election very soon. The party doesn't have the money to fight another election.

 

There are many parts of the budget which I don't like at all. I would have preferred it if Clegg had tried to hold out for the so-called mansion tax rather than an increase in VAT. Maybe he did but Cameron is well aware that Clegg would be reluctant to carry out a threat to quit the coalition. The Tories have the likes of Michael Ashcroft to pay for another election. The Lib Dems don't.

 

Also, the Lib Dems have been campaigning for many years for a change to the electoral system which would mean coalition governments became the norm. It would have been hard to explain to the electorate why they had refused to play a part in the only feasible coalition after May's election. That would simply have given strength to the argument that any system other than first past the post is inherently unstable.

 

That said, the party does need to ensure that they have a number of policies which they can say only happened because of their input. Simply saying that some things (e.g. cuts in inheritance tax) didn't happen won't be enough.

What other options were there? The only two party combinations which would have got a majority were Con/Lab (unlikely although it has happened in many councils) or Con/Lib Dem. The Libe Dems could have refused to do a deal with anyone but that would probably have led to another election very soon. The party doesn't have the money to fight another election.

 

There are many parts of the budget which I don't like at all. I would have preferred it if Clegg had tried to hold out for the so-called mansion tax rather than an increase in VAT. Maybe he did but Cameron is well aware that Clegg would be reluctant to carry out a threat to quit the coalition. The Tories have the likes of Michael Ashcroft to pay for another election. The Lib Dems don't.

 

Also, the Lib Dems have been campaigning for many years for a change to the electoral system which would mean coalition governments became the norm. It would have been hard to explain to the electorate why they had refused to play a part in the only feasible coalition after May's election. That would simply have given strength to the argument that any system other than first past the post is inherently unstable.

 

That said, the party does need to ensure that they have a number of policies which they can say only happened because of their input. Simply saying that some things (e.g. cuts in inheritance tax) didn't happen won't be enough.

 

Although I would've loved a Lib-Lab coalition, which I think would've combined the best from both parties (Labour's economic policies, the Lib Dems' civil liberties policies), I do accept that it wasn't feasible because of the way the arithmetic worked out and because Labour backbench MPs were so hostile towards it. But, even so, the Lib Dems still didn't have to go into coalition with the Tories - they could've easily agreed a confidence-and-supply agreement with a minority Tory government. I actually think they would've been in a stronger position that way, because the Tories would probably have been cowed into not doing anything too radical out of fear of the Lib Dems bringing them down at any time.

Edited August 3, 201014 yr by Danny

There's a long way to go to the next General Election. Could be 4 years 9 months still. Anything can happen in that time and polls now mean nothing.

That isn't certain. Fixed terms haven't gone through and the Lib Dems could pull out at any time.

 

Polls now mean nothing, but do you seriously think they're going to go UP for the Lib Dems once the cuts strike?

it gives the tories the upper hand and more bargaining power... they could deliberately push the libs on policy issues and be fairly confident that if it resulted in an election theyd win the overall majority. they might do this just to get a clear run.

Although I would've loved a Lib-Lab coalition, which I think would've combined the best from both parties (Labour's economic policies, the Lib Dems' civil liberties policies), I do accept that it wasn't feasible because of the way the arithmetic worked out and because Labour backbench MPs were so hostile towards it. But, even so, the Lib Dems still didn't have to go into coalition with the Tories - they could've easily agreed a confidence-and-supply agreement with a minority Tory government. I actually think they would've been in a stronger position that way, because the Tories would probably have been cowed into not doing anything too radical out of fear of the Lib Dems bringing them down at any time.

 

Hmmm, yeah, that might've worked...

 

Rob's post also has the ring of truth about it, but loss of confidence in the Fib Dems doesn't automatically transform into Tory votes, I still dont see them getting a majority vote if another election were to happen...

 

Although I would've loved a Lib-Lab coalition, which I think would've combined the best from both parties (Labour's economic policies, the Lib Dems' civil liberties policies), I do accept that it wasn't feasible because of the way the arithmetic worked out and because Labour backbench MPs were so hostile towards it. But, even so, the Lib Dems still didn't have to go into coalition with the Tories - they could've easily agreed a confidence-and-supply agreement with a minority Tory government. I actually think they would've been in a stronger position that way, because the Tories would probably have been cowed into not doing anything too radical out of fear of the Lib Dems bringing them down at any time.

If the Lib Dems had gone for a confidence and supply arrangement the Tories would have engineered a defeat on some populist measure such as repealing the Human Rights Act. They would then have called another election confident in the knowledge that most of the press (including supposedly respectable papers such as the Telegraph as well as the scummy tabloids) would have continued to mislead the public on the HRA.

The coalition was a smart move by Cameron, divide and rule.

 

By "partnering" with the Lib Dems and giving them a handful of token insignificant cabinet posts he has ensured that the Lib Dems are finished as a political force

 

AV will be comprehensively rejected by the British public at the referrendum I confidently predict and with the economy transformed since Cameron took over I think it is going to be more than a honeymoon period for him so he has popularity, the economy is strong and the Lib Dems were suckered into a so called partnership which will put them in the political wilderness for a generation, smart work Dave.

The economy is anything but strong. Scotland is teetering on the edge of double dipping and the rest of the UK isn't exactly in the safe zone.