'mon the lib dems

[AgentDaleCooper]

not because of anything clegg said (although he was alright) -

because they seem like they might actually have an outside chance now. it would be interesting.

**** the tories and fork labour

[woodythehibee]

thought they came across very last night and the polls certainly agreed.

Do they have a real chance? is it now a 3-way fight?

it's heating up now

[Betty Boop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

thought they came across very last night and the polls certainly agreed.

Do they have a real chance? is it now a 3-way fight?

it's heating up now

No, due to our unfair, first past the post voting system.

[The_Todd]

They don't have a real chance of winning the Election under a FPTP system. If everyone who wanted a LibDem government voted LibDem then there would be a chance, but the electorate knows that the voting system is against them and don't want to risk "wasting" a vote when it can be used to stop either a Tory and Labour (depending on their point of view) majority in their constituency.

As I've said elsewhere, the LibDems best hope comes in the form of a hung parliament where they use PR as a bargining chip as an exchange for entering into a Lib-Lab coalition (not likely to work with a Lib-Con coalition, since the Tories seem intent on sticking with FPTP).

Once PR is in place, wannabe LibDem voters will probably feel better about using their vote the way they really want to and could become a potential party of power.

There's nothing wrong in Nick Clegg aiming high, but his real aim this time round is probably to influence the next government into carrying out the electoral reform this country badly needs.

[Betty Boop]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

They don't have a real chance of winning the Election under a FPTP system. If everyone who wanted a LibDem government voted LibDem then there would be a chance, but the electorate knows that the voting system is against them and don't want to risk "wasting" a vote when it can be used to stop either a Tory and Labour (depending on their point of view) majority in their constituency.

As I've said elsewhere, the LibDems best hope comes in the form of a hung parliament where they use PR as a bargining chip as an exchange for entering into a Lib-Lab coalition (not likely to work with a Lib-Con coalition, since the Tories seem intent on sticking with FPTP).

Once PR is in place, wannabe LibDem voters will probably feel better about using their vote the way they really want to and could become a potential party of power.

There's nothing wrong in Nick Clegg aiming high, but his real aim this time round is probably to influence the next government into carrying out the electoral reform this country badly needs.

What is the chances of that happening? Despite Gordon Brown claiming he would reform the electoral system, (two weeks before a General Election), I doubt there will be change, it would be like turkeys voting for Xmas.

[The_Todd]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What is the chances of that happening? Despite Gordon Brown claiming he would reform the electoral system, (two weeks before a General Election), I doubt there will be change, it would be like turkeys voting for Xmas.

I know it wasn't up Blair's list of priorities, but Brown has commited to a referendum on voting reform to be held next year. Not a fuzzy "review" at some point "in the future" - but it sounds like a firm commitment to next year.

Also, if the Lib Dems use it as a real deal breaker the whole coalition would depend on it. If Labour break that promise, the Lib Dems would leave any coalition government and we would return to a hung parliament and another election would likely follow.

Unless the Tories win an outright majority, I suspect we will see electoral reform.

[matty_f]

I thought the best thing Clegg did last night was to keep his battle against both the Tories and Labour - he very rarely differentiated between them.

One of the biggest complaints about Labour and the Tories is that there's a perception that there's no real difference between them these days.

By consistently grouping them together to counter points, Clegg very cleverly set his party apart as a real stand-out.

I quite like the Lib Dems but have traditionally always voted Labour. I can't think of any circumstances where I would ever, ever vote Conservative.

My worry is that people don't see past the presentation of the leaders. I think Brown's got the toughest job to convince people to vote for him and his party.

Labour's policies were not popular, but they are (IMHO) mainly necessary - particularly with the economy. I think it's easy for Clegg to make his promises because he knows that there's not a great chance that he'll win the election, while Cameron's policies didn't appear to stand up to any great scrutiny, IMHO.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought the best thing Clegg did last night was to keep his battle against both the Tories and Labour - he very rarely differentiated between them.

One of the biggest complaints about Labour and the Tories is that there's a perception that there's no real difference between them these days.

By consistently grouping them together to counter points, Clegg very cleverly set his party apart as a real stand-out.

I quite like the Lib Dems but have traditionally always voted Labour. I can't think of any circumstances where I would ever, ever vote Conservative.

My worry is that people don't see past the presentation of the leaders. I think Brown's got the toughest job to convince people to vote for him and his party.

Labour's policies were not popular, but they are (IMHO) mainly necessary - particularly with the economy. I think it's easy for Clegg to make his promises because he knows that there's not a great chance that he'll win the election, while Cameron's policies didn't appear to stand up to any great scrutiny, IMHO.

Matty

What Clegg and the Lib Dems do is to hold a mirror up to the electorate and say the things they know people want to hear. The problem is that a) their policies don't stack up because they know they won't ever have to implement them so that means they can say whatever people want to hear and b) they are completely contradictory.

In two consecutive contributions to the debate Clegg:

Firstly attacked the Tories for basing their proposed £6 billion savings package for next year on making savings on government waste (he said this was the old chestnut which the two main parties always trot out) and then

Secondly when challenged by Cameron on how the Lib Dems would make their own savings AND fund their proposed tax cut for low earners he said they would do it by cutting out all the waste in government!

This is the kind of cobblers they get away with because everyone knows they are not seriously going to be implementing policy. Supporting them makes people feel good about themselves because they supposedly talk 'common sense'. The truth though is that their 'common sense' is completely unfit for government. Here's a good example. They love renewable energy and the environment and never stop talking about it. Except that if you look at any local authority where the Lib Dems are in charge and where there are planning applications for wind farms they spend a huge amount of their time rejecting wind renewable developments. Why? Because they like to be pro-renewable energy nationally since everyone is in favour of clean energy and they like to be anti-development locally since there are lots of votes to be had in opposing local wind farm developments.

And implementing any form of stv would be a disaster. Its equally unfair, makes for weak government and destroys the chance of radical change. Worst of all it means that we vote and then the politicians go off and privately cook up a government no-one voted for. In most other countries where they have that kind of voting system there's usually a small party like the Lib Dems sitting in the middle with disproportionate power to make or break governments on the basis of relatively few votes.

All electoral systems are equally unfair in different ways. Its just a matter of which unfair system you prefer. I prefer one which doesn't allow fence sitting Lib Dem charlatans anywhere near anything that matters, like decisions on anything important. Not least because they are utterly incapable of taking difficult decisions.

In summary the Lib Dem attraction is that you can park your vote with them safe in the knowledge that you haven't voted for either of the big two, you haven't voted for anything that is going to be implemented and it makes you feel good because you voted with the supposed 'outsiders'.

And .......breathe.

[PeeJay]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Matty

Worst of all it means that we vote and then the politicians go off and privately cook up a government no-one voted for (a). In most other countries where they have that kind of voting system there's usually a small party like the Lib Dems sitting in the middle with disproportionate power to make or break governments on the basis of relatively few votes (b).

A) If the electorate votes for a situation in which a need arises for a coalition, because it doesn't want one party to have all the say, then it has been voted for - by the electorate, surely?
B) Germany is an example here of how this actually can work though. I've been here 30 years- never once had a government without a coalition partner! We usually have governments with the Liberals cohabiting with one of the main parties, but the Greens have also taken up the spot recently.

Maybe not having things all your own way would help to concentrate the mind and lead to an overall improvement in performance?

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A) If the electorate votes for a situation in which a need arises for a coalition, because it doesn't want one party to have all the say, then it has been voted for - by the electorate, surely?

But the electorate doesn't consciously vote for that though does it? It doesn't get to tick a box marked 'coalition government please'. It votes for a range of parties who then go off and cook up deals. And if its an STV system then all you are getting is people's least worst voting choices being reflected rather than their first preferences. There is no such thing as a fair voting system.

B) Germany is an example here of how this actually can work though. I've been here 30 years- never once had a government without a coalition partner! We usually have governments with the Liberals cohabiting with one of the main parties, but the Greens have also taken up the spot recently.

All this does is disproportionately reward these minor parties with either ministerial jobs or pet policies. Its a fig leaf with big benefits for the jokers in these parties who would otherwise never get near serious decision making. Take a look at Italy by way of demonstration.

Maybe not having things all your own way would help to concentrate the mind and lead to an overall improvement in performance?

No I think it just dilutes the direction and purpose of governments and leads to lowest common denominator politics which is all nice fluffy middle class non-threatening stuff.

[--------]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Matty

What Clegg and the Lib Dems do is to hold a mirror up to the electorate and say the things they know people want to hear. The problem is that a) their policies don't stack up because they know they won't ever have to implement them so that means they can say whatever people want to hear and b) they are completely contradictory.

In two consecutive contributions to the debate Clegg:

Firstly attacked the Tories for basing their proposed £6 billion savings package for next year on making savings on government waste (he said this was the old chestnut which the two main parties always trot out) and then

Secondly when challenged by Cameron on how the Lib Dems would make their own savings AND fund their proposed tax cut for low earners he said they would do it by cutting out all the waste in government!

This is the kind of cobblers they get away with because everyone knows they are not seriously going to be implementing policy. Supporting them makes people feel good about themselves because they supposedly talk 'common sense'. The truth though is that their 'common sense' is completely unfit for government. Here's a good example. They love renewable energy and the environment and never stop talking about it. Except that if you look at any local authority where the Lib Dems are in charge and where there are planning applications for wind farms they spend a huge amount of their time rejecting wind renewable developments. Why? Because they like to be pro-renewable energy nationally since everyone is in favour of clean energy and they like to be anti-development locally since there are lots of votes to be had in opposing local wind farm developments.

And implementing any form of stv would be a disaster. Its equally unfair, makes for weak government and destroys the chance of radical change. Worst of all it means that we vote and then the politicians go off and privately cook up a government no-one voted for. In most other countries where they have that kind of voting system there's usually a small party like the Lib Dems sitting in the middle with disproportionate power to make or break governments on the basis of relatively few votes.

All electoral systems are equally unfair in different ways. Its just a matter of which unfair system you prefer. I prefer one which doesn't allow fence sitting Lib Dem charlatans anywhere near anything that matters, like decisions on anything important. Not least because they are utterly incapable of taking difficult decisions.

In summary the Lib Dem attraction is that you can park your vote with them safe in the knowledge that you haven't voted for either of the big two, you haven't voted for anything that is going to be implemented and it makes you feel good because you voted with the supposed 'outsiders'.

And .......breathe.

And another thing....

If Nick Clegg's so down on the LabourTories and the ToryTories, I assume that in the event of the Holyrood election next year resulting in no single party achieving a majority, the ScottishLibDemTories won't be entering into any sort of coalition or working relationship with either of the other Tory parties?

Offer a LibDemTory a ministerial limo and a wee portfolio and he or she's yours to do what you like with. Unprincipled weathercocks.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

And another thing....

If Nick Clegg's so down on the LabourTories and the ToryTories, I assume that in the event of the Holyrood election next year resulting in no single party achieving a majority, the ScottishLibDemTories won't be entering into any sort of coalition or working relationship with either of the other Tory parties?

Offer a LibDemTory a ministerial limo and a wee portfolio and he or she's yours to do what you like with. Unprincipled weathercocks.

Aside from your bollocks about Labour Tories Doddie I think your analysis is correct.

[da-robster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

No I think it just dilutes the direction and purpose of governments and leads to lowest common denominator politics which is all nice fluffy middle class non-threatening stuff.

What you're saying is that it is wrong for small parties to have a disproportionate influence on policy because they have a minority of the vote, but you want to keep a system whereby a party with a minority of the vote gets complete (i.e. disproportionate) control on policy.

While I agree with you that there is no such thing as a completely fair voting system, that doesn't mean that there aren't degrees of fairness, and in my view we shouldn't reject a system that is pretty fair but not perfect, while keeping a far worse system because the other wasn't perfect.

[Beefster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What you're saying is that it is wrong for small parties to have a disproportionate influence on policy because they have a minority of the vote, but you want to keep a system whereby a party with a minority of the vote gets complete (i.e. disproportionate) control on policy.

While I agree with you that there is no such thing as a completely fair voting system, that doesn't mean that there aren't degrees of fairness, and in my view we shouldn't reject a system that is pretty fair but not perfect, while keeping a far worse system because the other wasn't perfect.

There was a poll today that showed:

Tories - 33%
Lib Dems - 30%
Labour - 28%

Despite finishing third in the actual number of votes, Labour would still end up with more seats than anyone else.

Farce.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

In summary the Lib Dem attraction is that you can park your vote with them safe in the knowledge that you haven't voted for either of the big two, you haven't voted for anything that is going to be implemented and it makes you feel good because you voted with the supposed 'outsiders'.

And .......breathe.

What? It's like the Nats promising more Bobbies on ther beat and smaller class sizes. Then they get in to a position of power and its ....erm.............

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What? It's like the Nats promising more Bobbies on ther beat and smaller class sizes. Then they get in to a position of power and itsd ....erm.............

What?

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

What?

Sorry. It's a case of voting for a party who can't implement the policies they promised. As you accuse Lib Dem voters of doing.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Sorry. It's a case of voting for a party who can't implement the policies they promised. As you accuse Lib Dem voters of doing.

I'm not trying to deliberately be thick here, I'm just not getting your point. And I've only had one glass of wine so far.

[marinello59]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I'm not trying to deliberately be thick here, I'm just not getting your point. And I've only had one glass of wine so far.

Actually I misunderstood your point which , if I now understand it, was that the Lib Dems could promise whatever they like safe in the knowledge that they would never have to actually deliver it.
I confused that with the SNP situation of promising whatever they wanted then failing to deliver once in the position to do so. Sorry.

[One Day Soon]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Actually i misunderstood your point which , if i now understand it, was that the Lib Dems could promise whatever they like safe in the knowledge that they would never have to actually deliver it.
I confused that with the SNP situation of promising whatever they wanted then failing to deliver once in the positIon to do so. Sorry.

With you now.