Jump to content

Featured Replies

Posted

The Lib Dems' poll ratings are still often below 10% (a level that, before 2010, they hadn't reached in nearly 20 years), and Nick Clegg's personal ratings are still near an all-time low. On the other hand, many people (not all of them Lib Dem supporters) say specific Lib Dem MPs are still very popular, and that they're general poll ratings are likely to recover nearer the election. Which will actually happen?

 

Personally, I think they surely won't do as terribly as some were saying during the tuition fees saga (a lot of people were saying they could literally be slashed to about 10 MPs at the time), but I still think they could potentially lose up to half their current MPs.

  • Replies 112
  • Views 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

25-40 MPs (and a LOT of dogfights and narrow losses) but an absolutely murderous collapse everywhere where they don't already have seats.
25-40 MPs (and a LOT of dogfights and narrow losses) but an absolutely murderous collapse everywhere where they don't already have seats.

That's been the general story with local byelections. In seats where they have started from a low base, their results have often been atrocious. In seats where they have built up a reasonable vote over the years, their results have been far better including making gains from the Tories.

 

If they don't sort out their PR they may be reduced to around 30 seats. If they can improve their PR, then 40+. It doesn't help that it seems that Nick Clegg has only just cottoned on to the fact that the Tories have been claiming the credit for the increase in the basic tax allowance. Not only was it a Lib Dem policy and not a Tory one, Cameron denounced the policy as unaffordable. Clegg and co need to repeat that message at every opportunity. Political obsessives will be sick of hearing it but the message might actually start getting through to people less interested in politics.

 

I think we will hear a lot more stories about splits in the coalition over the coming months and many of them will be "leaks" from the Lib Dems in an attempt to win back voters.

They might do ok with tactical voting too

 

Labour voters in weak areas for labour voting lib dem to try keep the tories out, they might just scrape 30 seats

  • Author
They might do ok with tactical voting too

 

Labour voters in weak areas for labour voting lib dem to try keep the tories out, they might just scrape 30 seats

 

I really don't see most Labour voters tactically voting for them again. Not just because of a petty Lib Dem hatred (well, not JUST that), but also because of how important the national share of the vote is for Labour. If it's a hung parliament, with Labour and the Tories very close in votes, then those southern Labour supporters voting for them could make all the difference as to who comes first in share of the vote - and we all know, if the Tories get more votes, they and their media cheerleaders will claim they'd be a more "legitimate" government. So I think the Labour leadership this time will encourage Labour supporters even in seats where they have no chance of winning to vote for them anyway, even at the cost of letting some extra Conservative MPs in (whereas the last few elections, especially 2010, the Labour leaders were giving constant nods and winks that people should vote Lib Dem in Tory/Lib Dem marginals).

 

Plus, fairly or unfairly, it's just going to be near-impossible to convince Labour supporters that Nick Clegg would be willing to go into coalition with Labour, and that he wouldn't just go with the Tories again if he had a choice. If they get a new leader and replace him with someone more Labour-friendly then maybe it would be a different story.

Edited by Danny

They might do ok with tactical voting too

 

Labour voters in weak areas for labour voting lib dem to try keep the tories out, they might just scrape 30 seats

Wouldn't that actually keep the tories in? As surely the lib-dems have proven that they are conservatives after all.

 

Personally - the sooner the lib-dems disappear off the political landscape the better. They just get in the way.

Edited by Kath

Wouldn't that actually keep the tories in? As surely the lib-dems have proven that they are conservatives after all.

 

Personally - the sooner the lib-dems disappear off the political landscape the better. They just get in the way.

You mean you would be happy to see a two party system like in the US? Without the Alliance in 1983 many voters would have had nowhere to go. How do you decide how to vote if you don't agree with either choice?

You mean you would be happy to see a two party system like in the US? Without the Alliance in 1983 many voters would have had nowhere to go. How do you decide how to vote if you don't agree with either choice?

I've always seen the lib-dems (or liberals as I once knew them) as Conservatives anyway.

Their Scottish DEVASTATION makes their downfall in England and Wales look like a minor tumble.
I've always seen the lib-dems (or liberals as I once knew them) as Conservatives anyway.

Which is why they opposed the Iraq war, opposed ID cards long before the Tories, supported an equal age of consent for gay men long before Labour did,...

I really don't see most Labour voters tactically voting for them again. Not just because of a petty Lib Dem hatred (well, not JUST that), but also because of how important the national share of the vote is for Labour. If it's a hung parliament, with Labour and the Tories very close in votes, then those southern Labour supporters voting for them could make all the difference as to who comes first in share of the vote - and we all know, if the Tories get more votes, they and their media cheerleaders will claim they'd be a more "legitimate" government. So I think the Labour leadership this time will encourage Labour supporters even in seats where they have no chance of winning to vote for them anyway, even at the cost of letting some extra Conservative MPs in (whereas the last few elections, especially 2010, the Labour leaders were giving constant nods and winks that people should vote Lib Dem in Tory/Lib Dem marginals).

 

Plus, fairly or unfairly, it's just going to be near-impossible to convince Labour supporters that Nick Clegg would be willing to go into coalition with Labour, and that he wouldn't just go with the Tories again if he had a choice. If they get a new leader and replace him with someone more Labour-friendly then maybe it would be a different story.

 

See your point but Clegg is an opportunist, if doing a deal with labour kept his fancy title, ministerial jag, shaking hands with the queen and grace and favour apartment he would, he is one of the most shallow self absorbed politicians there is

 

 

See your point but Clegg is an opportunist, if doing a deal with labour kept his fancy title, ministerial jag, shaking hands with the queen and grace and favour apartment he would, he is one of the most shallow self absorbed politicians there is

Apart from Cameron, Osborne, Gove,....

 

Do you really think Clegg did a deal with the Tories simply to get a fancy title etc? Do you honestly think that somebody determined to become a minister would have joined the Lib Dems? If so, your claim to be intelligent has just taken yet another knock.

Apart from Cameron, Osborne, Gove,....

 

Do you really think Clegg did a deal with the Tories simply to get a fancy title etc? Do you honestly think that somebody determined to become a minister would have joined the Lib Dems? If so, your claim to be intelligent has just taken yet another knock.

 

He is not a true tory, the guy is an opportunist, plus he maybe won the next election for labour by screwing us over in terms of boundary changes which might well cost us up to 50 seats

  • Author
In fairness, I don't think the Lib Dems' problems are JUST down to the Coalition/Clegg... I think it's also that people are turning away from centrist parties, they've been getting hammered in elections in most countries over the past few years. Centrist parties by their nature largely want things to stay as they are (that's basically Clegg's message for the 2015 election, that by being in coalition he would "moderate" either Labour or the Tories and water down their agendas) -- but virtually no-one whatever their political views wants things to stay as they are, everyone agrees things are terrible as they are and there needs to be change of some sort, but people just aren't sure what type of change they want. So all over the world we're seeing rightwing populist parties (who say that if we punish immigrants and benefit-claimants then there'll be more wealth for the rest of us....which is a horrible message, but history shows it can work when people are desperate) and leftwing populist parties (who say they'll bash big business and make them spread wealth to the rest of us). But moderate parties like the Lib Dems just don't fit in well with the mood right now because people want radical solutions of some kind.
Wouldn't that actually keep the tories in? As surely the lib-dems have proven that they are conservatives after all.

 

Personally - the sooner the lib-dems disappear off the political landscape the better. They just get in the way.

 

Not proven that at all - just that the electorate rejected Labour so they had no option really. In normal times Liberals have always gotten into bed with Labour in preference to Conservatives. They have also been the party of choice for defecting Labour centre-ists when the party became unelectably left-wing. Historically they were the party of opposition to Tories...

 

Blame the electorate not the Libs...

See your point but Clegg is an opportunist, if doing a deal with labour kept his fancy title, ministerial jag, shaking hands with the queen and grace and favour apartment he would, he is one of the most shallow self absorbed politicians there is

 

just like smarmy public schoolboy Cameron and backstabbing Milliband then...

He is not a true tory, the guy is an opportunist, plus he maybe won the next election for labour by screwing us over in terms of boundary changes which might well cost us up to 50 seats

Boo-hoo.

Create an account or sign in to comment

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.