Viking Supporters Co-operative
Viking Chat => Off Topic => Topic started by: BillyStubbsTears on February 08, 2015, 08:04:31 pm
-
Oh dear...Big trouble.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/generalelection/lord-ashcroft-nick-clegg-is-losing-in-his-constituency-10030725.html
To put this in context, Labour never even came close to winning Sheffield Hallam in the landslides of 45 and 97. And no major party leader has lost their seat at a General Election since Arthur Henderson in Labour's catastrophe in 1931.
Who'd have thought Clegg could have been on a one-way trip to disaster when he was moving into Govt in 2010?
Well, me for one...
http://www.drfc-vsc.co.uk/index.php?topic=83196.msg83419#msg83419
-
Making an incisive political prophesy years before the event happens and generally being wise and all knowing! BST is clearly IC1967 in disguise.
-
Just shows how stupid the electorate are. Clegg is a hero. He put the country before political gain. He and the Tories saved us from the economic catastrophe that was Labour. We are still all doomed but at least he put off the day of reckoning.
So what is everyone upset about? Tuition fees. I'd remind everyone that when he went into coalition he was part of by far the smaller party. Anyone with half a brain should have realised he would have to compromise on certain policies. He did this on tuition fees.
Now given the size of his party in relation to the Tories, he has managed to punch above his weight and get more of his policies implemented than might have been expected. I'd call that a result and he should be praised to the high heavens for doing his duty in our hour of need.
-
As per-boring-usual Mick, your "facts" get blown over under the slightest of breezes.
It WASN'T tuition fees that hammered the LDs' popularity. They were already hammered by the time they broke the pledge on tuition fees. They got 23% of the vote in the May 2010 Election. They were still picking up 18-25% in opinion polls a month after the Election. Then the rot set in, when Osborne published his emergency Budget and it suddenly became clear to the muddle-headed fools who'd voted LD what they'd actually done. The LD vote share in the opinion polls collapsed. By August 2010, they were polling 12-15%. By November 2010, they were typically polling 11%.
The tuition fee vote wasn't until 9 December 2010. The LD vote share in the polls then dropped to ~8% and it's stayed there rock-solid ever since.
Tuition fees weren't the reason that people despise the LDs. That was just the final betrayal, but most of their support had already evaporated by the time they welched on that commitment.
You could check that REALLY easily if it EVER dawned on you to actually look for facts before you form an opinion.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_for_Students_pledge
-
ha ha! Don't be silly Billy. (lol!) Mick doesn't need facts. He's an omniscient genius. Well. That's what he claims. Like my old Mum used to say, 'Look at our Johnny. Everybody's out of step 'cept him'. So of course Mick's always right........
BobG
-
So all you saying billy bullshit is that the lib Dems are unpopular, yes we know change the f**king record old man.
But they are only unpopular with whining lefties, I think he should be admired for what Clegg did.
Shows alot of backbone.
-
So all you saying billy bullshit is that the lib Dems are unpopular, yes we know change the f**king record old man.
But they are only unpopular with whining lefties, I think he should be admired for what Clegg did.
Shows alot of backbone.
Your angry man persona is exagerated out of all proportion!
I bet you're a mild mannered janitor really :-)
-
Boomstick
Many thanks for yet another in your long line of well thought-out contributions. It's a pleasure to get an insight into your thoughts.
Hey! Who'd have thought there would be so many whining lefties in Sheffield Hallam?
-
Of course this means that Boomstick thinks that it's whining lefties that have voted for the Libdems all these years that have now deserted them. Fascinating political insight there.
-
Anyone who doesn't think the massive u turn on tuition fees is the main reason Clegg is so unpopular is a complete and utter fool. Of course there are other reasons but that is the main one.
What is it that people don't understand? Silly Billy scaremongers about UKIP forming a coalition with the Tories and all their policies will get implemented. Haven't people heard the word compromise? Do they know what it means?
Any party that forms a coalition has to compromise. The biggest party will have to compromise less. If you are a tiny part of the coalition you with have to compromise a lot. That's what happened.
It is only thick people and lefties that think Clegg should have implemented all his policies. Given how small a part of the coalition they were he has done remarkably well.
You lefties of course hate him because he allowed the Tories to govern. Thank goodness he did. Another 5 years of Labour would have totally finished the country off.
-
Anyone who doesn't think the massive u turn on tuition fees is the main reason Clegg is so unpopular is a complete and utter fool. Of course there are other reasons but that is the main one.
:suicide:
Can you read Mick? Why do you ignore facts put in front of your face? It makes you look a fool I'm afraid.
-
Hey! Who'd have thought there would be so many whining lefties in Sheffield Hallam?
Now that did make me genuinely laugh out loud.
-
Anyone who doesn't think the massive u turn on tuition fees is the main reason Clegg is so unpopular is a complete and utter fool. Of course there are other reasons but that is the main one.
:suicide:
Can you read Mick? Why do you ignore facts put in front of your face? It makes you look a fool I'm afraid.
What facts would they be? It is a fact that if you asked people why they won't vote for the LibDems at the next election, by far the biggest reason given would be because of tuition fees. That is a fact.
Don't believe me? I suggest you ask people you know what is the main reason they won't be voting LibDem and I guarantee the overwhelming response will be tuition fees.
Anyone that tries to argue any different is a complete and utter fool.
Read the following article if your attention span will allow for incontrovertible proof what I say is right and silly billy is twisting things yet again.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1338713/Tuition-fees-protest-Lib-Dems-lose-half-supporters-Nick-Cleck-lose-seat.html
-
As per-boring-usual Mick, your "facts" get blown over under the slightest of breezes.
It WASN'T tuition fees that hammered the LDs' popularity. They were already hammered by the time they broke the pledge on tuition fees. They got 23% of the vote in the May 2010 Election. They were still picking up 18-25% in opinion polls a month after the Election. Then the rot set in, when Osborne published his emergency Budget and it suddenly became clear to the muddle-headed fools who'd voted LD what they'd actually done. The LD vote share in the opinion polls collapsed. By August 2010, they were polling 12-15%. By November 2010, they were typically polling 11%.
The tuition fee vote wasn't until 9 December 2010. The LD vote share in the polls then dropped to ~8% and it's stayed there rock-solid ever since.
Tuition fees weren't the reason that people despise the LDs. That was just the final betrayal, but most of their support had already evaporated by the time they welched on that commitment.
You could check that REALLY easily if it EVER dawned on you to actually look for facts before you form an opinion.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_for_Students_pledge
You are a twisty turny thing. If we were to believe you the tuition fees issue only surfaced on 9th December 2010. The fact is that it was well know well before this. On 12th October 2010. Fact.
Lets provide some more evidence what I say is true. How about an article by the co-editor of LibDem Voice. He lists the main reasons for their loss of support. Guess what the number one reason is. Yes that's right - tuition fees.
Now get an abject apology sorted and we'll all try and forget another example of you twisting things to suit your own agenda.
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2014/11/stephen-tall-how-did-it-come-to-this-the-lib-dems-seven-key-coalition-moments.html
-
Even if the Lib-Dems breaking of their pledge over Tuition Fees wasn't the cause of their initial drop in popularity, I wonder if it is a key reason why their popularity hasn't recovered?
-
Even if the Lib-Dems breaking of their pledge over Tuition Fees wasn't the cause of their initial drop in popularity, I wonder if it is a key reason why their popularity hasn't recovered?
Bang on. Any party going into coalition with the Tories to try and sort out the unbelievable mess Labour left behind was always going to lose popularity. It is a fact that tuition fees was and is the main reason their popularity hasn't recovered as any fool knows.
-
Mick
I entirely understand that you are a simpleton with an obsessive need to find single explanations to complex problems. It's a common failing in thick people, as you remind us pretty much every time you pontificate.
If it helps, there's a book written by one of the UK's best popularisers of science on precisely this theme. Give it a go.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Think-Youll-Find-More-Complicated/dp/0007462484
Back to the Lib Dems. OK. We'll take Oct 12 as the key moment when, according to the LD expert [1] that you quote, Cable stunned the nation and party by accepting the tuition fee rise. If he "stunned" people, one assumes that no-one had thought that the Lib Dems would welch on their promise before that moment. But here's the rub. The LD share in the polls had already halved between mid-June and mid-October. After that, it dropped by no more than another 3-4%. That fall over summer 2010 was utterly unprecedented. Never before in British history has a party gone into Govt and proceeded to lose more than half it's support within 5-6 months. Before the tuition fee issue had even dawned on anyone.
[1] That LD Voice person. Not very impressive that such an authority on the party doesn't even know what Danny Alexander's position is. He is Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He has never been Shadow Chancellor. In fact, he could hardly be Shadow anything given that he's in Govt. But that sloppiness with the facts kind of sums up the party. Amateurish in the extreme.
-
TRB
That's a fair point but I think the LD malaise goes far deeper than that. The Tuition Fee issue is just symbolic of their real, existential problem.
The problem as I see it (and expounded on at length in 2010) is that the LDs assiduously portrayed themselves for many years as all things to all people. To the centre-right, they were hard-headed economically but with a conscience. Old school National Tories. To the Centre Left, they were sensible moderate interventionists economically, and socially far less authoritarian than that nasty Blair. To those disillusioned with politics, they were a breath of fresh air, untainted with the grubbiness of the main parties.
It was inevitable once they got into power that the final group would rapidly be disabused of that romantic idealism. They'd find out that the LDs were as likely as anyone to ditch inconvenient policies when reality struck. (Fascinatingly, a decent sized chunk of 2010 LD voters have now moved to support UKIP which is almost literally incredible if you think about policies since the two parties are about as far apart on all the big issues as you can get. But it makes all the sense in the world if you think of these voters as being desperate for someone who looks like a break from politics as usual.)
As for the other two groups, it was inevitable once the LDs threw their lot in with the Tories or Lab that they would alienate one of the groups of 2010 supporters.
And that gets to the core of the LDs' problem. The key issue in May 2010 was the economy. Were we to have Austerity or Keynesian stimulus? It was THE dominating issue. The LDs campaigned vigorously for delayed Austerity and continued stimulus. And then, within days of the Election, they turned 180 degrees on the single most vital issue. Clegg, astonishingly, said he changed his mind in the last few days before the vote. But he didn't tell anyone until AFTER the vote.
And THAT's the problem. When you vote for the LDs, what on earth are you voting for? You're not positively voting for anything, because there is not a single policy that they won't jettison immediately afterwards. So their entire policy manifesto is literally meaningless. You're voting for someone who says, "Maybe we'll be a bit right wing after the Election. Maybe we'll be a bit left-wing. Leave it to us to decide."
But WHY leave it to them? If you're a bit right wing, doesn't it make sense to simply vote Tory and not run the risk of Clegg propping up Miliband? Or if you're a bit left wing, why vote for Clegg only to see him put Osborne into No10 and Gove into Education?
The entire fantasy edifice that the LDs spent a generation building up was destroyed in 5-6 months of reality. It was blindingly obvious from Autumn 2010 that they weren't coming back from that. The breaking of the tuition fee pledge as nowt more than the icing on the cake.
-
Funny. I could have sworn, Billy, you already laid out a nice simple statement of LibDem popularity ratings over time prior to their tuition fee Damascene moment. Like BJW suggested, I'm starting to think you actually can't read Mick. Do you need help?
Cheers
BobG
PS Just seen your reponse to TRB. I'm going to print that off and pin it on my wall. You must be a lecturer. Only I know you're not. Bloody good whatever.
-
I've read some drivel in my time but this time I think you've surpassed yourself. One thing I will say is you have a very vivid imagination. Unfortunately you demonstrate your usual capacity for not seeing the wood for the trees.
Tuition fees is not the icing on the cake. It is the main reason the LibDems popularity has not recovered. Of course they were going to be unpopular at first. Tough decisions had to be made. They made them. This was not popular but if it hadn't been for tuition fees their popularity would have increased by now.
It's that simple. Thank goodness there is someone about like me that can clearly see the wood for the trees. I've proved my point by posting links with incontrovertible evidence. All you've done is given us a timeline of some events and put your own spin on it.
Like I say, you've got a very vivid imagination that is not grounded in reality.
-
I've read some drivel in my time but this time I think you've surpassed yourself. One thing I will say is you have a very vivid imagination. Unfortunately you demonstrate your usual capacity for not seeing the wood for the trees.
Tuition fees is not the icing on the cake. It is the main reason the LibDems popularity has not recovered. Of course they were going to be unpopular at first. Tough decisions had to be made. They made them. This was not popular but if it hadn't been for tuition fees their popularity would have increased by now.
It's that simple. Thank goodness there is someone about like me that can clearly see the wood for the trees. I've proved my point by posting links with incontrovertible evidence. All you've done is given us a timeline of some events and put your own spin on it.
Like I say, you've got a very vivid imagination that is not grounded in reality.
Where you have given exactly what? To back up your claim
-
I would also appreciate it if you could stop banging on about Keynes. I wouldn't mind so much if his theory was actually used properly. But it isn't when you've got politicians involved.
They only believe in the spending bit of his theory. They don't like the putting money away for a rainy day side of things.
Also I'd like you to explain about austerity. This government has borrowed more than all the previous Labour governments put together.
Austerity, what austerity?
-
I've read some drivel in my time but this time I think you've surpassed yourself. One thing I will say is you have a very vivid imagination. Unfortunately you demonstrate your usual capacity for not seeing the wood for the trees.
Tuition fees is not the icing on the cake. It is the main reason the LibDems popularity has not recovered. Of course they were going to be unpopular at first. Tough decisions had to be made. They made them. This was not popular but if it hadn't been for tuition fees their popularity would have increased by now.
It's that simple. Thank goodness there is someone about like me that can clearly see the wood for the trees. I've proved my point by posting links with incontrovertible evidence. All you've done is given us a timeline of some events and put your own spin on it.
Like I say, you've got a very vivid imagination that is not grounded in reality.
Where you have given exactly what? To back up your claim
I refer you to the 2 excellent links I posted. I'd also ask you to conduct your own experiment and ask people what they think is the main reason the LibDems are so unpopular. I guarantee you that the answer you will overwhelmingly get is tuition fees.
-
I've read some drivel in my time but this time I think you've surpassed yourself. One thing I will say is you have a very vivid imagination. Unfortunately you demonstrate your usual capacity for not seeing the wood for the trees.
Tuition fees is not the icing on the cake. It is the main reason the LibDems popularity has not recovered. Of course they were going to be unpopular at first. Tough decisions had to be made. They made them. This was not popular but if it hadn't been for tuition fees their popularity would have increased by now.
It's that simple. Thank goodness there is someone about like me that can clearly see the wood for the trees. I've proved my point by posting links with incontrovertible evidence. All you've done is given us a timeline of some events and put your own spin on it.
Like I say, you've got a very vivid imagination that is not grounded in reality.
Where you have given exactly what? To back up your claim
I refer you to the 2 excellent links I posted. I'd also ask you to conduct your own experiment and ask people what they think is the main reason the LibDems are so unpopular. I guarantee you that the answer you will overwhelmingly get is tuition fees.
Ah yes, one link from the daily lier and the other from the conservatives who are now sticking the boot into the lib dems, they've served their purpose, they're of no use now
-
I have a really, really weary sense of déjà vu. But I'm going to ask the old question anyway.
Do you actually read the links that you post Mick? You know, the links you post that you then, like a whining child, insist that you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Do you read them?
-
He's gone quiet. He's reading the articles and trying to figure out what the f**k I'm on about.
-
Hahaha. You do make me laugh. Of course I read my links. You obviously don't.
You obviously don't get it. The electorate are for the most part not that interested in politics. They like to grab on to the simple facts of a situation. They don't over analyse everything to the nth degree like you do.
They grabbed hold of the tuition fees issue. They decided that this was a fundamental part of the LibDems manifesto and weren't prepared to overlook the fact that the party had to compromise.
They lost trust in the party mainly because of this ditching of their manifesto promise on tuition fees.
It's that simple. Try asking people why they think the LibDems will get hammered at the general election. Two words will come back at you - tuition fees.
Get over it.
-
Are you SURE you read those articles?
-
Are you SURE you read those articles?
Hahaha. You obviously think you've found something that will catch me out. No problem. Bring it on.
In future just get on with it. You are becoming increasingly tiresome. You'd do well to follow my example of not spouting drivel and getting to the point straight away.
-
Mick
Go and read the articles again. You'll cotton on eventually.
-
Mick
Go and read the articles again. You'll cotton on eventually.
I've just got one thing to say to you and that is ffs.
-
Go on! Toddle off and read them. It's really, really obvious.
-
He hasn't read them has he? Lol! That's quite funny. Pillock.
BobG
-
He hasn't read them has he? Lol! That's quite funny. Pillock.
BobG
I don't think silly Billy will appreciate being called a pillock.
IC1967
-
He hasn't read them has he? Lol! That's quite funny. Pillock.
BobG
I don't think silly Billy will appreciate being called a pillock.
IC1967
*yawn*
-
He proves the point time and time again doesn't he? Pillock.
BobG
-
Well whaddya know?
I was on kids duty today and neither if them wanted to go to the match. So we went to Millhouses Park in Sheffield.
Who walks into the play park with his little daughter and 3 obvious minders but old Nick himself.
He looked haggard. Haunted. Not a smile for his daughter the whole time they were there. The look of a man staring at the accusing finger of history which will point him out as a spectacular failure.
As a fellow human being, I felt sorry for the man.
Aye, like f**k. Nemesis time Nicholas. Nemesis.
-
I don't know who I feel sorrier for BST, you for missing a stonking home win or the Cleggster. You need to set your young 'uns on the path of righteousness as soon as possible.
I wonder if he'd just had an earful from her indoors because in my experience politicians, like sportsmen, are usually pretty good at switching off when off duty. Cameron is very good at it, as an example. Maybe he'd forgotten to send his good lady her Valentines roses?
-
TRB
They get to plenty of matches but they're at an age where they don't get THAT much out of it and I don't want to push it.
As for Clegg, I agree that politicians have to be able to switch off. But then, there are precious few politicians who find themselves in a situation like Clegg. He has effectively destroyed his party as a serious political force for a generation. And he is effectively on the scrap heap come May. It's looking likely he may lose his seat which would be the ultimate humiliation. But if he does cling on, and the LDs are in a position to form a coalition, he could only remain as leader if they partner with the Tories. Labour would demand his head as a price for partnering with the LDs - and his party would willingly sacrifice him. His only chance of having any meaningful role post-May requires an unlikely combination of events - he wins his seat and the Tories & LDs together get enough seats to form a coalition. Barring that, he's gone and he'll be kebabbed by History as an out-of-his-depth failure.
-
TRB
They get to plenty of matches but they're at an age where they don't get THAT much out of it and I don't want to push it.
As for Clegg, I agree that politicians have to be able to switch off. But then, there are precious few politicians who find themselves in a situation like Clegg. He has effectively destroyed his party as a serious political force for a generation. And he is effectively on the scrap heap come May. It's looking likely he may lose his seat which would be the ultimate humiliation. But if he does cling on, and the LDs are in a position to form a coalition, he could only remain as leader if they partner with the Tories. Labour would demand his head as a price for partnering with the LDs - and his party would willingly sacrifice him. His only chance of having any meaningful role post-May requires an unlikely combination of events - he wins his seat and the Tories & LDs together get enough seats to form a coalition. Barring that, he's gone and he'll be kebabbed by History as an out-of-his-depth failure.
Nothing more than he deserves in my opinion, he sold his party's soul and principles for his 5 minutes of personal glory!
-
TRB
They get to plenty of matches but they're at an age where they don't get THAT much out of it and I don't want to push it.
As for Clegg, I agree that politicians have to be able to switch off. But then, there are precious few politicians who find themselves in a situation like Clegg. He has effectively destroyed his party as a serious political force for a generation. And he is effectively on the scrap heap come May. It's looking likely he may lose his seat which would be the ultimate humiliation. But if he does cling on, and the LDs are in a position to form a coalition, he could only remain as leader if they partner with the Tories. Labour would demand his head as a price for partnering with the LDs - and his party would willingly sacrifice him. His only chance of having any meaningful role post-May requires an unlikely combination of events - he wins his seat and the Tories & LDs together get enough seats to form a coalition. Barring that, he's gone and he'll be kebabbed by History as an out-of-his-depth failure.
I wouldn't be so quick to write him off. The bookies now have the Tories at 4/6 to be the largest party (you could have got 2/1 if you'd taken my advice many months ago). So it is now very likely they will be the biggest party with a give away budget and improving economic fortunes between now and polling day. The LibDems are also likely to still be a major force in terms of number of seats they hold onto. I think the Tories will win an overall majority but the main consensus view is that there will be a coalition government. If this happens it will be another Tory and LibDem coalition.
So my advice would be to stop crowing about the demise of Nick Clegg. Just shows how out of touch you are.
-
Obviously the opinion polls suggest that Clegg's decision to enter a coalition with the Tories was a poor one. But it is worth considering his other options. He could have formed one with Labour, but they would have to have made cuts and increased taxes as well - they admitted as much. So a Lab-Lib Coalition might not have been popular, and given the numbers of MPs involved might not have been very stable either.
Clegg's other option was to refuse to enter a Coalition and decide whether or not to support a minority Government (probably Tory) on a case by case basis. That would probably have been the best option for his party - with hindsight. They might have got squeezed a bit at the inevitable second election as voters felt they had to choose one of the "big" parties. But their vote wouldn't have fallen by as much as it has now.
I suppose Clegg's mistake was that he wanted a seat in Government and thought that the Lib Dems could really make a difference as a junior partner in a coalition. And maybe they have, but in doing so they have sacrificed some of their principles and a lot of their public appeal. It is a salutary warning to all "smaller" parties who may have to contemplate whether to join a coalition after this May's GE.
-
TRB
He didn't have to enter into any coalition. He could have allowed the Tories to have a minority administration and picked and chosen which legislation to support.
He justified the coalition decision (which required his party to totally jettison it's economic policy) by a fallacious argument that we required strong Government to control the deficit or we would be at the mercy of the Bond Vigilantes. That was utter and complete nonsense. It was an argument that had no grounding in any empirical or theoretical economics.
He and his party made that decision. They are reaping the consequences. Amateurs playing a grown-up game.
-
I did say that was one of his options and, as I said, in hindsight probably the best for the Lib Dems.
-
Sorry TRB
I'm doing you the dishonour of scan reading before I jump into replying! You did of course point out that an informal support approach would have been the better outcome for them.
I think the crucial thing is that it isn't hindsight that is required to see the existential mistake that the LDs have made. Plenty of people (myself included) were predicting exactly this outcome 5 years ago. I find it incomprehensible that the LDs hadn't thought this through. That they hadn't realised how serious was the trap that they walked into.
The key issue is that you CANNOT campaign on utterly fundamental issues such as your approach to macroeconomic policy, then throw the whole lot out within hours of attracting 6 million votes and sign up to support diametrically opposed policies.
THAT is the fundamental problem that the LDs face and it's one I was talking about back in May 2010. If you are a centre-left supporter who is being seduced by left-ish sounding LD policies, why vote LD and run the risk of having them decide AFTER the Election to support a right-wing Govt? And vice-versa.
The fact that around 3million people stopped supporting the LDs over Summer 2010 and have never gone back to supporting them shows the appalling scale of their existential problem.
In a nutshell, there is no point whatsoever to the LDs. A vote for them is a non-decision. Because you have no idea what they will stand for until the rest of the Election results are in.
-
As I live in the Tory south I have, often, voted tactically at pretty well all elections. That usually meant voting LibDem. Never did me any good as the Tories always sweep in very handsomely but it did at least leave me feeling that I tried. Well. Sod that. I will never, ever, do that again. I don't care what the circumstances are. I'm sticking to principle now.
A good mate of mine is a Tory Councillor in Milton Keynes. His Mrs is (or maybe it's was now?) Tory Mayor. Their next door neighbour is a lifelong, committed and hard working liberal democrat. A nice bloke and a bloke who put his all into his party at every single election. His house and my mates house were passionately contrasting neighbours. When I spoke to him a couple of months ago, it sounded to me like he'd given up. Even if he hasn't given up, it's clear his heart, his passion, has gone. Nick Clegg has done that. He's destroyed the very roots of his party. when you think of the political geniuses who have led the Liberal party over the centuries, Lloyd George, Asquith, Campbell-Bannerman, Gladstone, David Steel even, they must all be in despair at the antics of this clown.
He is not a politician. He doesn't have the judgement. He's an embarasment to the political process.
BobG
-
Bob
I'm not sure that any of the main leaders are up to much. It's just that Clegg had a weaker hand to play.
All three main party leaders were in their 30s or early 40s when they became party leaders. That is ridiculously young, and means that they didn't have the time to develop their sophistication (ie, make mistakes under the radar) before being slammed into the public eye. It's hardly surprising that they have all either made enormous mistakes or not been able to capitalise on their opponents' weaknesses.
It's fascinating how times have changed. Harold Wilson was seen as a dynamic youthful leader when he took over as head of the Labour Party in 1963. He was pushing 47. Two of Clegg, Miliband and Cameron will have their political career over in May. Two of them are 48, the other is 45.
It's barmy. We're losing 20 years of experience in this daft cult of youth.
-
Judgement - the privilege of the old... You are right Billy. Age does bring a lot of things - some not so welcome but some bloody vital. Clegg's current inability to see beyond the end of his nose certainly does make him an embarrasment at the moment. He did have a weaker hand Billy. Yes. But he could have played it a lot better. Maybe he would have done better if he'd waited 20 years?
Incidentally, how old was David Steel when he became leader? He was pretty youthful I do believe.
Bob
-
Bob
Steel was 37 or 38 I think. But I'm not sure that he was such a great politician. He led the Liberals to a loss of 1/4 of their vote in 79 by supporting the Labour Govt. Then he reaped the benefit of a collapsing Labour Party in the early 80s. And he did bugger-all with it, other than allow Maggie to have uncontested power on historically low General Election vote shares.
-
I suppose my lauding of Steel is more to do with his principles on things like abortion and the death penalty. I hope I at least slightly qualified the admiration. Of course he can't be compared with the greats of yesteryear. But he was a damn sight longer sighted than the current buffoon and he did have a few principles. Mind you, I'd forgotten the drop in their vote in 79 - so thanks.
Bob
-
Bob
I'd forgotten about the young firebrand Steel. I guess he was a genuine Liberal who helped to usher in the modern era. He deserves credit for that. Even if he effectively gave us the Govt that brought in Clause 28 two decades later.
-
Still not caught up.
http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2015/04/lord-ashcroft-clegg-is-two-points-behind-labour-in-sheffield-hallam-my-latest-lib-dem-marginals-polling.html
That's Clegg by the way, although I assume the same applies to Mick.
-
I was reading that earlier. He's still 4/7 to regain his seat though (or he was earlier).
-
Clegg will win because the Greens will take enough votes off Labour to get him over the finishing line.
pmsl.
-
Go on Mick. I can't help myself when you spout your bullshit.
Back in November when Ashcroft last polled Hallam, Labour were on 30% and the Greens on 10%
Today, Labour are on 36% and the Greens on 6%.
As you were. Back to "Ignore"
-
Gaz.
And drifting quickly. He was 2/5 a few weeks back, last time I checked.
I still think he will win because the Right wing vote is crumbling and going to him.
In Nov, it was LD 27% Con 19, UKIP 13
Today it is LD 34, Con 16, UKIP 7
-
Go on Mick. I can't help myself when you spout your bullshit.
Back in November when Ashcroft last polled Hallam, Labour were on 30% and the Greens on 10%
Today, Labour are on 36% and the Greens on 6%.
As you were. Back to "Ignore"
Hahaha! Clegg will win. The brilliant job he's done rescuing the economy from the disaster that was Labour will stand him in good stead when it comes to putting a cross on the ballot paper. Don't forget UKIP will also take votes from Labour. There is no way Nick won't win.
-
Clegg will win because the Greens will take enough votes off Labour to get him over the finishing line.
pmsl.
Another gem to memorialise.
-
Go on Mick. I can't help myself when you spout your bullshit.
Back in November when Ashcroft last polled Hallam, Labour were on 30% and the Greens on 10%
Today, Labour are on 36% and the Greens on 6%.
As you were. Back to "Ignore"
Hahaha! Clegg will win. The brilliant job he's done rescuing the economy from the disaster that was Labour will stand him in good stead when it comes to putting a cross on the ballot paper. Don't forget UKIP will also take votes from Labour. There is no way Nick won't win.
UKIP are taking 10% of their votes from Labour. 14% from Libdem.
-
Go on Mick. I can't help myself when you spout your bullshit.
Back in November when Ashcroft last polled Hallam, Labour were on 30% and the Greens on 10%
Today, Labour are on 36% and the Greens on 6%.
As you were. Back to "Ignore"
Hahaha! Clegg will win. The brilliant job he's done rescuing the economy from the disaster that was Labour will stand him in good stead when it comes to putting a cross on the ballot paper. Don't forget UKIP will also take votes from Labour. There is no way Nick won't win.
UKIP are taking 10% of their votes from Labour. 14% from Libdem.
Us Ukippers aren't daft. If voting UKIP means Labour will get in we'll switch to Nick to keep them out.
Sorted.
-
Don't forget, I've memorialised your words of wisdom so you can't surreptitiously change them after the result whilst swearing blind you haven't...
-
Don't forget, I've memorialised your words of wisdom so you can't surreptitiously change them after the result whilst swearing blind you haven't...
pmsl because he will. Carling was far more fun to debate with.
-
Don't forget, I've memorialised your words of wisdom so you can't surreptitiously change them after the result whilst swearing blind you haven't...
pmsl because he will. Carling was far more fun to debate with.
He can change his original post, but he can't change what I've quoted because it's in my post, not his.
-
Don't forget, I've memorialised your words of wisdom so you can't surreptitiously change them after the result whilst swearing blind you haven't...
pmsl because he will. Carling was far more fun to debate with.
He can change his original post, but he can't change what I've quoted because it's in my post, not his.
However he will twist your words to suit his argument ...the man is a bore.
-
As per-boring-usual Mick, your "facts" get blown over under the slightest of breezes.
It WASN'T tuition fees that hammered the LDs' popularity. They were already hammered by the time they broke the pledge on tuition fees. They got 23% of the vote in the May 2010 Election. They were still picking up 18-25% in opinion polls a month after the Election. Then the rot set in, when Osborne published his emergency Budget and it suddenly became clear to the muddle-headed fools who'd voted LD what they'd actually done. The LD vote share in the opinion polls collapsed. By August 2010, they were polling 12-15%. By November 2010, they were typically polling 11%.
The tuition fee vote wasn't until 9 December 2010. The LD vote share in the polls then dropped to ~8% and it's stayed there rock-solid ever since.
Tuition fees weren't the reason that people despise the LDs. That was just the final betrayal, but most of their support had already evaporated by the time they welched on that commitment.
You could check that REALLY easily if it EVER dawned on you to actually look for facts before you form an opinion.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/voting-intention-2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vote_for_Students_pledge
I think you would then have to despise every party that ever came into government on that basis BST. Their vote will hold up far better than you think because of their hard work in the constituencies they now hold. It suits you and both the Labour and Tory parties to try and smash this party apart from day1 . There is not a party around who would not have seized some form of limited power given the same circumstances or would have had to concede some if not most of their election pledges.
Their natural partner would have been Labour , being a centre-left party, but as we now know Labour weren't at all interested in any form of power sharing to continue with a minority government. Now you seek to blame these last 5 years purely on Nick Clegg ?
This decrease in their overall share of the vote will go where Billy ? Careful for what you desire because if disaffected LD voters leave in droves as you suggest then they may not go to Labour and that with the situation in Scotland could prove very interesting . Their Scottish seats could well go to the SNP and their English seats will go to anyone but don't assume they will all go to Labour.In fact disaffected LD voters could well ensure that Labour lose key marginals here in England with the economy recovering or at least perceived to be in recovery.
Strangely enough and what would appear to be a strange phenomenon is that 20-23% is roughly the combined LD and UKIP throughout these opinion polls. As we all know , minor parties don't usually collapse completely from election to election (regardless of who voted for what , where and when) so perhaps the soft underbelly of the LDs are defecting to the right i.e. UKIP which may not help the Labour party at all, Where the LDs do control and were they to lose control then perhaps those seats would more naturally fall to the Conservatives in the marginals.
Btw come the election, if Nick Clegg doesn't hold his constituency ; then I will show my arse in the Keepmoat car park. Perhaps that's the penalty for ''muddle- headed'' folk like me and yes I would do it all over again and yes I am very proud of what they have been able to achieve and curb.
-
Well whaddya know?
I was on kids duty today and neither if them wanted to go to the match. So we went to Millhouses Park in Sheffield.
Who walks into the play park with his little daughter and 3 obvious minders but old Nick himself.
He looked haggard. Haunted. Not a smile for his daughter the whole time they were there. The look of a man staring at the accusing finger of history which will point him out as a spectacular failure.
As a fellow human being, I felt sorry for the man.
What a ridiculous post . You despised him before the General Election in 2010 because Billy you knew he would kick those foolish mates of yours out of office.
History will certainly look at those ''wasted'' 13 years in power from those 'muddle headed' and 'dangerous' fools in a very dim light . So many things went wrong on that watch it was untrue and poor old Ed continually finds himself saying ''we were wrong'' and you harp on about tuition fees ..............where is the effing money Billy or rather where did it go ?
Weapons of mass destruction, quangos upto our arseholes, wasted opportunities for real health and welfare reform, poor banking sector regulations, weak immigration policies, waste everywhere etc etc etc...........and nowt left in the bank. You wanted them back in power in 2010 for more of the same ? You have a cheek to moralise about Nick Clegg when the rest of this mess had already happened ffs where is your grasp of reality and the overall picture ? We've had these debates before and I can't be bothered to trawl through every mistake and failed to materialise promise that Labour made during those 13 years.
I have a daughter studying for her 'A' levels don't you think I want everything free too but it can't happen and central planks have fallen out of EVERY party's election pledges whether they win or lose . Do you really think there was a way out for the LDs ?
Aye, like f***. Nemesis time Nicholas. Nemesis.
-
Go on Mick. I can't help myself when you spout your bullshit.
Back in November when Ashcroft last polled Hallam, Labour were on 30% and the Greens on 10%
Today, Labour are on 36% and the Greens on 6%.
As you were. Back to "Ignore"
What you 'ignore' is the methodology of the polling. When Nick Clegg is named when the question is asked about which party people will vote for he tops the polls comfortably.
You'd be surprised at how many people have respect for Clegg for putting the country first knowing he was going to lose support from his usual voters. I think he is a top bloke and deserves the chance to form another 'coalition' with the Tories if there is no outright majority. People aren't daft. Most people would prefer a 'coalition' like we've just had rather than Labour and the SNP getting their incompetent hands on power.
-
That will be the first question to Ed tonight "would you be prepared to form a coilition with the SNP". If he answers yes it will be the end for Labour, if he answers no he probably has little chance of getting the big job.
-
That will be the first question to Ed tonight "would you be prepared to form a coilition with the SNP". If he answers yes it will be the end for Labour, if he answers no he probably has little chance of getting the big job.
Very little ''wriggle room '' there is there then Gaz ? The trouble is will he keep the line of 'we will win with an absolute majority' or will he be already looking at what both parties have in common. Personally I think the SNP would want far too much in return for co-operation and he has to forge ahead knowing he is risking everything with no fall back position if he doesn't get that majority.
Personally think the LD vote will hold up where it counts and the UKIP share will drop by a fair margin. That will probably leave us in much the same position and the same Coalition going ahead.
Barring a major gaff , I don't think the Conservative share will shift sufficiently and perhaps firm up on the back of gains in the South West from the LDs. Labour would be hoping to poll nearer the high 30's by now wouldn't they ?
-
The Ashcroft polling, from which the 36% Lab, 34% LD in Sheffield Hallam is taken, is actually very interesting.
It suggests that in LD held marginals their vote is holding up remarkably well, but in their target seats, mostly Tory-held, the LD vote has weakened substantially.
I'd say this is more evidence of the Eastleigh Effect. I'll be interested to see how this pans out in my constituency which is currently a knife-edge Lib Dem marginal.
The conclusion I draw is that however much their share of the national vote may fall, LD losses may not be that heavy. They are therefore very likely to be major players in the (likely) event of a Hung Parliament.
-
That will be the first question to Ed tonight "would you be prepared to form a coilition with the SNP". If he answers yes it will be the end for Labour, if he answers no he probably has little chance of getting the big job.
As I 've mentioned elsewhere, I can't see that the SNP would be interested in forming a coalition with any UK party. That doesn't mean to say that they wouldn't support a minority Labour government on key votes. But they would want things in return, and Labour might consider some of those non-negotiable.
-
The Ashcroft polling, from which the 36% Lab, 34% LD in Sheffield Hallam is taken, is actually very interesting.
It suggests that in LD held marginals their vote is holding up remarkably well, but in their target seats, mostly Tory-held, the LD vote has weakened substantially.
I'd say this is more evidence of the Eastleigh Effect. I'll be interested to see how this pans out in my constituency which is currently a knife-edge Lib Dem marginal.
The conclusion I draw is that however much their share of the national vote may fall, LD losses may not be that heavy. They are therefore very likely to be major players in the (likely) event of a Hung Parliament.
That's how I see it. The LD party just like the other 2 main Parties will have seats they WON'T lose and that's because they work them hard and well ; basically they are very organised. National decreases in % share would be extremely unlikely to affect these constituencies. They will lose seats but strangely enough may gain a few if the UKIP vote splits the Tory vote and the LDs are in 2nd place in many of the Tory heartlands. All to play for and of course there is last minute tactical voting that will be especially crucial in 3 way marginals .
The Ashcroft analyses are very interesting indeed...
-
That will be the first question to Ed tonight "would you be prepared to form a coilition with the SNP". If he answers yes it will be the end for Labour, if he answers no he probably has little chance of getting the big job.
As I 've mentioned elsewhere, I can't see that the SNP would be interested in forming a coalition with any UK party. That doesn't mean to say that they wouldn't support a minority Labour government on key votes. But they would want things in return, and Labour might consider some of those non-negotiable.
The terms of any tacit agreement from the SNP would surely be another tilt at Devolution in the next Parliament...ouch. It doesn't bear thinking about from a Labour point of view.
-
I think you mean another independence referendum rather than devolution but yes, I think that will be the SNP's price.
-
No chance in a million that Labour will offer an independence referendum. Independence is not something you vote in every couple of years until a YES vote finally happens. And of course, the SNP don't want one because their entire post-independence economic policy is shot to pieces.
There will not be another referendum for 20 years at least.
There will also be no coalition between Lab and SNP. Both parties have ruled that out.
That leaves SNP support for a minority Lab Govt. This is where it gets interesting. It seems on the surface that the SNP would hold a strong hand. In practice I suspect the SNP will find that they will get very little from the Labour Party. Because Labour can call their bluff. They can say "Bring down a Labour Govt if you want. Allow the Tories in if you want. And THEN see what response you get from those new, predominantly left wing voters that you have won in Scotland by telling them that you are their natural left wing home. Go on! We dare you!"
Politics. Rough tough game.
-
I think you mean another independence referendum rather than devolution but yes, I think that will be the SNP's price.
Sorry I did mean Independence
-
No chance in a million that Labour will offer an independence referendum. Independence is not something you vote in every couple of years until a YES vote finally happens. And of course, the SNP don't want one because their entire post-independence economic policy is shot to pieces.
There will not be another referendum for 20 years at least.
There will also be no coalition between Lab and SNP. Both parties have ruled that out.
That leaves SNP support for a minority Lab Govt. This is where it gets interesting. It seems on the surface that the SNP would hold a strong hand. In practice I suspect the SNP will find that they will get very little from the Labour Party. Because Labour can call their bluff. They can say "Bring down a Labour Govt if you want. Allow the Tories in if you want. And THEN see what response you get from those new, predominantly left wing voters that you have won in Scotland by telling them that you are their natural left wing home. Go on! We dare you!"
Politics. Rough tough game.
It will get very interesting and fatr more interesting than outright majorities. I think that the LDs or at least Clegg suggested that he wanted to finish the job I.e. another 5 years of a Con/LD Coalition and Cameron's final argument possibly suggested the same.
Strange but very interesting times if you enjoy politics :)
-
Clegg's popularity has mainly been harmed by being ''Guilt of Association'', just like when a football manager doesn't do well, the supporters don't want his number two involved when the boss is sacked.
-
Obviously the opinion polls suggest that Clegg's decision to enter a coalition with the Tories was a poor one. But it is worth considering his other options. He could have formed one with Labour, but they would have to have made cuts and increased taxes as well - they admitted as much. So a Lab-Lib Coalition might not have been popular, and given the numbers of MPs involved might not have been very stable either.
Clegg's other option was to refuse to enter a Coalition and decide whether or not to support a minority Government (probably Tory) on a case by case basis. That would probably have been the best option for his party - with hindsight. They might have got squeezed a bit at the inevitable second election as voters felt they had to choose one of the "big" parties. But their vote wouldn't have fallen by as much as it has now.
I suppose Clegg's mistake was that he wanted a seat in Government and thought that the Lib Dems could really make a difference as a junior partner in a coalition. And maybe they have, but in doing so they have sacrificed some of their principles and a lot of their public appeal. It is a salutary warning to all "smaller" parties who may have to contemplate whether to join a coalition after this May's GE.
I believe he did the right thing , if the LDs , with their share of the vote, could not influence and help stabilise the country after the shite position that 13 sorry and let down years of the Labour Party; then what was the point ? They took a bold decision that obviously was deeply unpopular with numpty Labour supporters who had hoped that the term would not be served at great risk to themselves.
As for letting folk down, not standing by their principles etc . ....jeez what about every broken promise and election pledge broken by the other 2 main parties.
Sorry it won't wash and come the election results , I believe they will be vindicated and hold on to many of their existing seats . Do you know why ? Because they work hard in their constituencies and don't take things for granted as the other 2 main parties have done in the past.
Its obvious that the press and even folk on here seek to undermine and scapegoat the LDs in order to poach their supporters.
Labour supporters crowing about principles after the Blair/Brown calamitous years has got to be some kind of sick joke hasn't it ?