Nick Clegg

[BillyStubbsTears]

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

[LongbridgeMGRover]

Making an incisive political prophesy years before the event happens and generally being wise and all knowing! BST is clearly IC1967 in disguise.

[IC1967]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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

[BobG]

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

[Boomstick]

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.

[Filo]

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 :-)

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[Glyn_Wigley]

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.

[IC1967]

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.

[bobjimwilly]

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.

 

Can you read Mick? Why do you ignore facts put in front of your face? It makes you look a fool I'm afraid.

[RobTheRover]

Hey! Who'd have thought there would be so many whining lefties in Sheffield Hallam?

Now that did make me genuinely laugh out loud.

[IC1967]

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.

 

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

[IC1967]

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

[The Red Baron]

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?

[IC1967]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

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.

[BobG]

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.

[IC1967]

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.

[Filo]

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

[IC1967]

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?

[IC1967]

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.

[Filo]

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

[BillyStubbsTears]

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?

[BillyStubbsTears]

He's gone quiet. He's reading the articles and trying to figure out what the f**k I'm on about.

[IC1967]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Are you SURE you read those articles?

[IC1967]

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.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Mick

Go and read the articles again. You'll cotton on eventually.