UK Politics: May seems a long way

[mormont]

There's a clear Lib Dem voter profile, now. Economically dry, very socially liberal, and pro-EU. That's like the profile of the people who voted FPD in Germany. That's only 8-9% of the electorate, but it should be enough to get them 30 seats or so. So, I see no split. They've lost their left wing to Labour and the Greens, their right wing to the Conservatives, and their None of the Above voters to UKIP.

I'm not sure this is really true. I have friends in the North of England who are 'traditional' Lib Dem voters, on the left of the party, and although they're disappointed with the coalition they've stuck by the party so far. I myself live in a 'traditional' Lib Dem constituency in Scotland, which means fairly rural, not comfortable bedfellows with the metropolitan 'classical' liberals of the Orange Book mob (admittedly, my constituency has a huge personal vote for the sitting MP, but pretty much all Scottish LD constituencies have that).

The LD party is still a broad church, albeit some of the congregation are unhappy. The tensions are still there.

[SeanF]

I'm not sure this is really true. I have friends in the North of England who are 'traditional' Lib Dem voters, on the left of the party, and although they're disappointed with the coalition they've stuck by the party so far. I myself live in a 'traditional' Lib Dem constituency in Scotland, which means fairly rural, not comfortable bedfellows with the metropolitan 'classical' liberals of the Orange Book mob (admittedly, my constituency has a huge personal vote for the sitting MP, but pretty much all Scottish LD constituencies have that).The LD party is still a broad church, albeit some of the congregation are unhappy. The tensions are still there.

I think incumbent Lib Dem MPs do have a big personal vote, among people who wouldn't otherwise vote Lib Dem. The party itself still has 40,000 members, and 2,000 councillors, many of long-standing. So, I there's certainly scope for tension in the party. Among voters, though, it looks as though something like 40% of people who voted Lib Dem in 2010 have now switched to Labour and the Greens, and I can't see them returning. Overall, I'd say the Lib Dems are more united than the Conservatives. I'm sure Cameron loathes the idea of actually having to deliver on his EU referendum pledge.

[Maltaran]

I think incumbent Lib Dem MPs do have a big personal vote, among people who wouldn't otherwise vote Lib Dem.

I'd agree with that - if I still lived in my parents' constituency, I probably would be voting for them again in May. As it is, I'm in the 40% you mention, although I haven't yet decided which one I'm switching to.

[DJDonegal]

The LD party is still a broad church, albeit some of the congregation are unhappy.

Clegg should have had more sense 5 years ago.

Anyone in the UK would have told you that if the LD's didn't exist then more of their voting base would vote Labour over Conservative when given the binary option. Clegg's argument for choosing Cameron over Brown (and later Cameron over Labour) was that "that was the choice the British people made". But the idiot couldn't do the maths and find that more chose Labour and LD than Conservatives on their own.

And now his party, and ultimately his own political career, will pay the price in May. Incumbency factor will save a lot of LD's where they probably shouldn't survive, but they were riding a bit of a wave last time out and that's all gone.

[Maltaran]

To be fair to Clegg, he'd said beforehand that whichever party had the most seats should get the first chance at forming a government (and he is an Orange Booker, which puts him closer to the Tories than others of his party).

[SeanF]

Clegg should have had more sense 5 years ago.

Anyone in the UK would have told you that if the LD's didn't exist then more of their voting base would vote Labour over Conservative when given the binary option. Clegg's argument for choosing Cameron over Brown (and later Cameron over Labour) was that "that was the choice the British people made". But the idiot couldn't do the maths and find that more chose Labour and LD than Conservatives on their own.

And now his party, and ultimately his own political career, will pay the price in May. Incumbency factor will save a lot of LD's where they probably shouldn't survive, but they were riding a bit of a wave last time out and that's all gone.

The electoral maths meant either a Conservative minority government, or a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition.

A Labour/Lib Dem coalition, short of a majority, would have staggered on for a few months, and then been slaughtered in a subsequent election.

[Hereward]

Now that's just silly. Anyone who thinks the LibDems would be better off if they'd kept Gordon Brown and the party whose vote had just completely collapsed in power, while simultaneously admitting that they weren't an actual separate entity is on even better stuff than I am. Confidence and supply OTOH...

[Maltaran]

Now that's just silly. Anyone who thinks the LibDems would be better off if they'd kept Gordon Brown and the party whose vote had just completely collapsed in power, while simultaneously admitting that they weren't an actual separate entity is on even better stuff than I am. Confidence and supply OTOH...

In hindsight, yes, a confidence and supply agreement with Cameron would have worked out better than a full coalition - the main thing I can remember that the Lib Dems got out of the coalition that they may not have got under C&S was the AV referendum, which failed miserably anyway.

Edit: I've just remembered where the name Celadeyr comes from. Good choice.

[Salafi Stannis]

.

[Hereward]

Edit: I've just remembered where the name Celadeyr comes from. Good choice.

It was a toss up between that and Dawson Kalliam. I think you'll see the message.

[Salafi Stannis]

In hindsight, yes, a confidence and supply agreement with Cameron would have worked out better than a full coalition - the main thing I can remember that the Lib Dems got out of the coalition that they may not have got under C&S was the AV referendum, which failed miserably anyway.

Edit: I've just remembered where the name Celadeyr comes from. Good choice.

It'd have been better for everyone, Clegg would have been able to avoid a lot of the nastiness he's gotten themselves into, like he'd never have had to vote on tuition fees so he'd still be able to play the populist and the Lib Dems would be the ones getting the protest votes Ukip are getting now.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think that literally the only thing saving the Liberal Democrats is that many of their seats are Lib Dem-Tory marginals. Labourites have to suffer the choice of hurting the Lib Dems only to help the Tories, or vice versa. And the likes of Orkney and Shetland would vote Lib Dem even if the Lib Dems were reduced to an Orkney and Shetland nationalist movement.

As for Clegg: confidence and supply, or even fresh election if neither party wanted to budge on proportional representation (the argument that they would be punished for sending an inconclusive outcome back to the voters overlooks the punishment coming in May).

[DJDonegal]

Now that's just silly. Anyone who thinks the LibDems would be better off if they'd kept Gordon Brown and the party whose vote had just completely collapsed in power, while simultaneously admitting that they weren't an actual separate entity is on even better stuff than I am. Confidence and supply OTOH...

Bit of an oversimplication. It's not like the Conservatives won a massive majority; in fact they were not even close to a majority of any kind, falling 20 seats short. That's embarrassing for a Conservative leader fighting against a man unpopular on a personal level, and a party that had ruled for 13 years.

I also didn't necessarily expect them to go with Brown himself, but once Brown had stepped out of the way I thought they might go with the Labour party (who would have done much better in 2010 under a more popular leader). But then you're getting into leadership battles and it's a big mess... This is all "what if" anyway.

But my question was from an LD view: Why would Clegg go with the Cons? I acknowledge Malt's point that he had promised to give the largest party the first shot at forming government, but that was worded in such a way that he would have had a very easy way of backing out if they didn't give him what he wanted. And really, they didn't - so he wanted to go with the Conservatives. Labour promised a vote on Proportional Representation (a desperate final attempt to form Government) while Conservatives only gave a vote on AV, a confusing voting method compared to PR.

Clegg had to know he was in a no-win for the next election if he went into Government with anyone. That's the modus operandi for any minor party in a coalition. So he should have tried to look at his voter base, analyse which party was more appeasing to them and looked at that to protect the party as much as possible for future elections. He should have then also considered what was best for his party's future, and that was PR.

I still don't know how AV would have helped the Lib Dems.

In hindsight, confidence and supply with Conservatives (to ensure a working Government on budgets etc.) may have been the best option but a full coalition with Labour was the second best option so long as you're considering what was best for the prospects of the long-term future of the Liberal Democrats.

But...

The electoral maths meant either a Conservative minority government, or a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition.

A Labour/Lib Dem coalition, short of a majority, would have staggered on for a few months, and then been slaughtered in a subsequent election.

This was, admittedly, a point I'd neglected to remember.

[Salafi Stannis]

Bit of an oversimplication. It's not like the Conservatives won a massive majority; in fact they were not even close to a majority of any kind, falling 20 seats short. That's embarrassing for a Conservative leader fighting against a man unpopular on a personal level, and a party that had ruled for 13 years.

I also didn't necessarily expect them to go with Brown himself, but once Brown had stepped out of the way I thought they might go with the Labour party (who would have done much better in 2010 under a more popular leader). But then you're getting into leadership battles and it's a big mess... This is all "what if" anyway.

But my question was from an LD view: Why would Clegg go with the Cons? I acknowledge Malt's point that he had promised to give the largest party the first shot at forming government, but that was worded in such a way that he would have had a very easy way of backing out if they didn't give him what he wanted. And really, they didn't - so he wanted to go with the Conservatives. Labour promised a vote on Proportional Representation (a desperate final attempt to form Government) while Conservatives only gave a vote on AV, a confusing voting method compared to PR.

Clegg had to know he was in a no-win for the next election if he went into Government with anyone. That's the modus operandi for any minor party in a coalition. So he should have tried to look at his voter base, analyse which party was more appeasing to them and looked at that to protect the party as much as possible for future elections. He should have then also considered what was best for his party's future, and that was PR.

I still don't know how AV would have helped the Lib Dems.

In hindsight, confidence and supply with Conservatives (to ensure a working Government on budgets etc.) may have been the best option but a full coalition with Labour was the second best option so long as you're considering what was best for the prospects of the long-term future of the Liberal Democrats.

But...

This was, admittedly, a point I'd neglected to remember.

A Lib-Lab coalition in 2010 would still have fallen 8 seats short of a majority.

And I think Lib Dems just wanted any alternative to first past the post, which they obviously find is unfair, and that it discriminates against smaller parties (which it does), like how the Lib Dems got 23% of the votes and won only 9% of the seats. Though I think they do prefer STV.

[mormont]

There have been comments from the Conservatives to the effect that they were surprised how easy Clegg was to deal with in coalition negotiations: it certainly appears that he was personally keen on coalition with the Tories right from the beginning.

In many ways, I can understand why. It was a historic moment: Clegg will always be the first Lib Dem leader to get his party into government. As well as the personal ego issue, Clegg likely believed this would pay off in the long term by ridding his party of the 'protest vote' tag. It also provided him with a perfect excuse to ditch policies he personally disliked, although of course holding onto those policies in opposition wouldn't have meant much in practical terms. And ideologically and personally, he probably felt he had more in common with the Tories under Cameron than Labour.

It's turned out to be a colossal misjudgement, but if you want to do something, you can easily find reasons.

[SeanF]

A Lib-Lab coalition in 2010 would still have fallen 8 seats short of a majority.

And I think Lib Dems just wanted any alternative to past the post, which they obviously find is unfair, and that it discriminates against smaller parties (which it does), like how the Lib Dems got 23% of the votes and won only 9% of the seats. Though I think they do prefer STV.

AV would probably give more Lib Dem seats than FPTP.

Ironically, the outcome of the vote worked against the Conservatives. They would pick up the majority of UKIP transfers under AV.

[DJDonegal]

A Lib-Lab coalition in 2010 would still have fallen 8 seats short of a majority.

Yep; which I admitted I had forgotten. But even 8 seats short of a majority, with other parties who would be sympathetic to Labour values in the house rather than Conservative (SNP, PC, Greens, SDLP), they could have functioned. Not for the 5 years we've had the ConDem coalition, but a while.

It's turned out to be a colossal misjudgement, but if you want to do something, you can easily find reasons.

You won't get any argument from me on this.

[Sophelia]

Some Fox news presenter made an idiot of himself by making absurd statements about Birmingham (and London):

YouTube video

transcript

...and become relentlessly mocked on twitter under #foxnewsfacts

He has now apologised and is making a donation to Birmingham Children's hospital.

:rolleyes:

[Maltaran]

It's terrible - I went to Tesco for lunch and there were no ham sandwiches! #foxnewsfacts

[Slick Mongoose]

The thing that gets me isn't the guy who said it (just some nutter), but the uncritical shock of the presenter. Don't they educate their news presenters?