Labour wouldn't have done ANYTHING different regarding the banks. If you think that you are seriously deluding yourself.

Labour wouldn't have done ANYTHING different regarding the banks. If you think that you are seriously deluding yourself.

Did I say I supported or voted for the "Labour"Party? No, I did not, thank you. In fact, show me a post ANYWHERE on this forum where I defend the actions of the Labour Govt with regards to the banks, the war or, well, anything else really. I'm certainly under no "delusions" that "Labour"were a big part of the problem and allowed the bonus culture in the City to run riot, which has led to the problems we now face...

I actually voted Fib Dem, who said they WOULD make the banks pay.... But of course as with everything else, that's clearly gone out the window so they could crawl up Cameron's arsehole.....

I love how people like you seem to think that immigrants are all lazy scroungers, yet at the same time mysteriously taking all the jobs. The reality is that most immigrants are in employment because they are willing to work below the minimum wage (a failure on the part of the employer). Very few claim benefits, so even if we enforced your draconian suggestion, it would save a minimal amount.

 

to be fair to the racist, he didnt actually say that immigrants come here to sponge off our welfare system, he just said that they wouldnt be entitled to benefits .... which is fair enough.

to be fair to the racist, he didnt actually say that immigrants come here to sponge off our welfare system, he just said that they wouldnt be entitled to benefits .... which is fair enough.

 

While I couldn't disagree with you more about the racist bit the rest was right

Did I say I supported or voted for the "Labour"Party? No, I did not, thank you. In fact, show me a post ANYWHERE on this forum where I defend the actions of the Labour Govt with regards to the banks, the war or, well, anything else really. I'm certainly under no "delusions" that "Labour"were a big part of the problem and allowed the bonus culture in the City to run riot, which has led to the problems we now face...

I actually voted Fib Dem, who said they WOULD make the banks pay.... But of course as with everything else, that's clearly gone out the window so they could crawl up Cameron's arsehole.....

 

But if they had have sided with Labour in a coalition of the losers, they STILL wouldn't have introduced the so-called 'Robin Hood Tax', because Labour would have their own interests to defend.

 

That's why, as has always been the case, a vote for the Lib Dems is nothing more than a protest vote. If you really support them you should be glad they're in SOME form of government and able to get a number of their policies through, as opposed to the usual twiddling their thumbs in constant opposition.

But if they had have sided with Labour in a coalition of the losers, they STILL wouldn't have introduced the so-called 'Robin Hood Tax', because Labour would have their own interests to defend.

 

Actually, Brown and Darling had been saying for the last year they wanted a pan-European "Robin Hood tax" (which Merkel and Sarkozy had also been calling for), and even key US financial figures like Bernanke have been making some supportive noises - but unsurprisingly, the Coalition has set its face against it.

 

 

That's why, as has always been the case, a vote for the Lib Dems is nothing more than a protest vote. If you really support them you should be glad they're in SOME form of government and able to get a number of their policies through, as opposed to the usual twiddling their thumbs in constant opposition.

 

Most of the Lib Dem voters supported policies that are the complete opposite of what this government is implementing. As a poll showed right before the election, around 43% of Lib Dem voters considered themselves to be centre-left/left on the political spectrum, 25% consider themselves centrist, and only around 8% considered themselves centre-right/right. And by no-one's definition are this government's policies left-wing. Anyway, the Lib Dems in Cabinet are certainly not seemingly exercising any progressive influence - I mean, the most progressive policies are coming from Ken Clarke! :lol:

That's why, as has always been the case, a vote for the Lib Dems is nothing more than a protest vote. If you really support them you should be glad they're in SOME form of government and able to get a number of their policies through, as opposed to the usual twiddling their thumbs in constant opposition.

 

I should be glad that they've reneged on just about every single promise they made in their manifesto just to get a seat at the Tory table...? Are you serious with that....? The majority of Lib Dem voters are Centre-leftists or Centrists, as Danny has pointed out, and you cannot possibly say that the things that they are willingly signing up to actually satisfies really ANY of these voters who actually wanted something different to the past 30 years of Labour and Tory crap.... Put it this way, I wouldn't have voted Lib Dem if they'd said "well, if we're part of a Tory coalition, we'll just forget about stuff we promised like taxing the banks and our opposition to a rise in VAT rates, and go along with spending loadsamoney on Trident and cutting schools building programmes".... yeah, that's a REAL vote-winner amongst their grass roots support.......

 

Lib Dem scores on ICM polls in August from 2005 onwards

 

Aug 10 – 18%

Aug 09 – 19%

Aug 08 – 19%

Aug 07 – 18%

Aug 06 – 22%

Aug 05 – 22%

 

Hardly a slump, more like business as usual.

That 18% one is a bit of an anomaly though. They tend to be trending between 12-15% lately.

Lib Dem scores on ICM polls in August from 2005 onwards

 

Aug 10 – 18%

Aug 09 – 19%

Aug 08 – 19%

Aug 07 – 18%

Aug 06 – 22%

Aug 05 – 22%

 

Hardly a slump, more like business as usual.

 

But this isn't business as usual for the Lib Dems. Usually after an election, they fall back into obscurity (relatively speaking); this time, they're part of the government, with their leader as deputy prime minister. They're never going to have a higher profile and bigger media presence than this, so the fact they're even lower than usual after an election should be very worrying.

Edited August 22, 201014 yr by Danny

Local government byelections since the general election don't show any sign of a collapse in Lib Dem support. There is also no sign that the electorate have any problem distinguishing between the coalition at national level and the fact that the two parties continue to oppose each other at local level.

 

Lib Dem membership in England has increased since the election. 4,500 new members have signed up compared with 450 resignations. This is a larger incease than after the 2005 election. Of course, there may be members who will not renew their membership when it is due but the renewal rate is currently higher than it was a year ago.

Local government byelections since the general election don't show any sign of a collapse in Lib Dem support. There is also no sign that the electorate have any problem distinguishing between the coalition at national level and the fact that the two parties continue to oppose each other at local level.

 

Lib Dem membership in England has increased since the election. 4,500 new members have signed up compared with 450 resignations. This is a larger incease than after the 2005 election. Of course, there may be members who will not renew their membership when it is due but the renewal rate is currently higher than it was a year ago.

450 resignations? Hasn't it been more than 12,000 that joined the Labour Party immediately after the election claiming to be ex-Lib Dems?

450 resignations? Hasn't it been more than 12,000 that joined the Labour Party immediately after the election claiming to be ex-Lib Dems?

That's what the Labour party claim but it doesn't make sense. Total Lib Dem membership at the start of the year was only around 60,000. I can't believe that a fifth of them have left to join Labour. Of course, it's perfectly possible that 12,000 former supporters have joined Labour, particularly as they have used the leadership contest to try and attract new members.

That's what the Labour party claim but it doesn't make sense. Total Lib Dem membership at the start of the year was only around 60,000. I can't believe that a fifth of them have left to join Labour. Of course, it's perfectly possible that 12,000 former supporters have joined Labour, particularly as they have used the leadership contest to try and attract new members.

I believe that was what made it so shocking. I can very much believe a fifth of them would leave considering the outrage amongst certain sectors at the coalition.

The daily YouGov tracker poll has shown the Lib Dems at 12% for three days in a row. Meanwhile, the same polls also indicate a 3% swing from the Tories to Labour since the election, which would make Labour the largest party in a hung parliament at about 310 seats (on the current consituency boundaries). The Coalition's net approval rating is now at 0 for the first time. And, needless to say, this is all STILL while Labour has no leader!

Edited August 24, 201014 yr by Danny

The daily YouGov tracker poll has shown the Lib Dems at 12% for three days in a row. Meanwhile, the same polls also indicate a 3% swing from the Tories to Labour since the election, which would make Labour the largest party in a hung parliament at about 310 seats (on the current consituency boundaries). The Coalition's net approval rating is now at 0 for the first time. And, needless to say, this is all STILL while Labour has no leader!

 

There will be a dip in Conservative support especially next year when the cuts bite and VAT goes up, if Milliband or whoever takes over hasn't got at least a 12 point lead this time next year then they should resign

 

But there is 5 years till the next election so plenty of time for the tories to recover from the inevitable support slump that is around the corner

Edited August 24, 201014 yr by I ❤ JustinBieber

But there is 5 years till the next election

 

It's so CUTE that you still think that. Frankly, given how quickly Lib Dems are getting restless, I don't think it's out of the question we'll have another election before the end of the year (although my money is still on it being at some point during 2011).

It's so CUTE that you still think that. Frankly, given how quickly Lib Dems are getting restless, I don't think it's out of the question we'll have another election before the end of the year (although my money is still on it being at some point during 2011).

 

As I have said repeatedly neither the Lib Dems or Labour have the money for that unless they suddenly find a billionaire donor like the Tories have.

 

Labour are up to their eyeballs in debt, they could barely afford a tube of toothpaste let alone fighting an election, Lib Dems have members leaving in droves, the money isn't there for them to fight an election this year.

 

They can get as restless as they want but the bank manager wants money not restlessness

As I have said repeatedly neither the Lib Dems or Labour have the money for that unless they suddenly find a billionaire donor like the Tories have.

 

Labour are up to their eyeballs in debt, they could barely afford a tube of toothpaste let alone fighting an election, Lib Dems have members leaving in droves, the money isn't there for them to fight an election this year.

 

They can get as restless as they want but the bank manager wants money not restlessness

 

Wrong again. Since the election, Labour have raised £10m - only £2m less than the Tories. And also, Labour deliberately held some money back during their election campaign earlier this year precisely because they suspected they'd have to fight another election shortly afterwards. You overestimate the impact money has anyway - as we all know, the Tories had by far the most expensive campaign this year, along with all the other factors in their favour (unpopular PM, recession) and they STILL couldn't win.

 

But anyway, like I said, *I* don't expect another election this year. I think the threat of it will be staved off the short term at next month's Lib Dem party conference when I think the party members will force Clegg to grow some balls and threaten Cameron with a withdrawal unless the government makes some serious changes (majorly scaling back the deficit reduction, scaling back the education reforms, complete block on the NHS reforms).

Edited August 24, 201014 yr by Danny

Wrong again. Since the election, Labour have raised £10m - only £2m less than the Tories. And also, Labour deliberately held some money back during their election campaign earlier this year precisely because they suspected they'd have to fight another election shortly afterwards.

 

But anyway, like I said, *I* don't expect another election this year. I think the threat of it will be staved off the short term at next month's Lib Dem party conference when I think the party members will force Clegg to grow some balls and threaten Cameron with a withdrawal unless the government makes some serious changes (majorly scaling back the deficit reduction, scaling back the education reforms, complete block on the NHS reforms).

 

I just don't see it

 

Clegg is Cameron's "mini me" now, he has been totally seduced by the scent of power, they would have to depose Clegg and reinstate Charles Kennedy to stand any chance of Clegg giving up this little power trip and many of the Lib Dem ministers equally have been seduced by ministerial positions, more likely the Lib Dems will die altogether in this next 5 years with the scraps being picked up by Labour and the Tories