# Lib Dem Polls - How Low Can They Go?



## the button (Jun 13, 2010)

As noted on the 8 May p), it was a case of coalition at all costs for the LibDems. This YouGov poll for The Sunday Times has: -

Tories: 40% (up 4% from election result)
Labour: 32% (up 3% from election result)
LibDem: 18% (down 5% from election result)

Where you might have expected LibDem share to go up (having demonstrated that they're capable of being in government), it looks like the electorate is not too happy with Nick.

No wonder they were so keen on the 55% thing for dissolution of parliament.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 13, 2010)

Wonder how long it'll be before this is spun into a LibDems being absorbed by Tory party story?


----------



## Jazzz (Jun 13, 2010)

Apparently in New Zealand, where coalition governments are a normality, it is common for the smaller of the two parties in the coalition to break up. So I heard.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 13, 2010)

Yes the national liberals now that was a good idea


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

Go home lib-dems.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 13, 2010)

I'm not convinced that Cameron is really in charge. He bent right over to get the LDs on board, and Clegg successfully scared him with the negotiations with Labour. Give it time and good PR and the LDs can turn this around.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

You're well nutty on political stuff aren't you?


----------



## Quartz (Jun 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> You're well nutty on political stuff aren't you?



Hasn't stopped me being correct before.


----------



## gentlegreen (Jun 13, 2010)

"Reverse SDP" anyone ?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Hasn't stopped me being correct before.



Where and when?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

Mail has them on 19% today. 39/32/19.


----------



## the button (Jun 13, 2010)

Right-wing bloggers like Guido Fawkes have been itching for the LibDems to split -- his latest one being a breakaway led by Simon Hughes (semi-believable cos the bloke's an egomaniac and probably desperate to lead something) and Vince Cable (wtf?).


----------



## the button (Jun 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Mail has them on 19% today. 39/32/19.



Hardly the kind of "bounce" in the polls that new parties of government normally experience, eh?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

the button said:


> Right-wing bloggers like Guido Fawkes have been itching for the LibDems to split -- his latest one being a breakaway led by Simon Hughes (semi-believable cos the bloke's an egomaniac and probably desperate to lead something) and Vince Cable (wtf?).



That'll be a split to the even-further-right then.

It's amazing that anyone still buys Cable's PR bollocks. (I don't for a second believe that those mentioned above do btw - their attempts at damaging shit stirring are transparent)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

the button said:


> Hardly the kind of "bounce" in the polls that new parties of government normally experience, eh?



There's a good division of labour here (even better till Laws decided to get caught being a lying thief). The tories do the looking good and professional side and the lib-dems do the getting taken to the cleaners side. Coalition _can_ work.


----------



## trevhagl (Jun 13, 2010)

the button said:


> As noted on the 8 May p), it was a case of coalition at all costs for the LibDems. This YouGov poll for The Sunday Times has: -
> 
> Tories: 40% (up 4% from election result)
> Labour: 32% (up 3% from election result)
> ...




is 'capable of being in government' a euphanism for "agreeing with everything Disco Dave wants" ?


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 13, 2010)

Quartz said:


> I'm not convinced that Cameron is really in charge. He bent right over to get the LDs on board, and Clegg successfully scared him with the negotiations with Labour. Give it time and good PR and the LDs can turn this around.



Of course Cameron isn't in charge. The billionaires that fund the Tory Party are in charge.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

3 by-elections with lib-dem incumbents since the coaltion was formed. They lost two to the tories and one to the greens. That's their vanishing future writ small right there.


----------



## free spirit (Jun 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 3 by-elections with lib-dem incumbents since the coaltion was formed. They lost two to the tories and one to the greens. That's their vanishing future writ small right there.



you could well be right.

as far as I can see, the only hope the lib dems have got of salvaging this situation is to be seen to deliver on as much of the good stuff from the manifesto as possible while in government, drop the shit ideas, and prevent the worst excesses of the tories.

it's too early to tell properly, but from where I'm standing it's not looking particularly promising


----------



## the button (Jun 13, 2010)

free spirit said:


> you could well be right.
> 
> as far as I can see, the only hope the lib dems have got of salvaging this situation is to be seen to deliver on as much of the good stuff from the manifesto as possible while in government, drop the shit ideas, and prevent the worst excesses of the tories.
> 
> it's too early to tell properly, but from where I'm standing it's not looking particularly promising



Leaving aside whether the "curbing the excesses" line is true or not, it's going to be a tough one to take come the next election. If your hustings position is "Yeah, I know, but you should see some of the mad shit they *wanted* to do lol," then: -

1. The immediate question is why the fuck did you help put them into power and sign up to a measure that makes it harder to get rid of them (the 55% thing)?
2. It makes it a lot harder to form a second coalition goverment with them in the event of another hung parliament. 

FWIW, I think the second point is more significant than the first. In terms of parliamentary politics, one of the most interesting things in the next five years is how the LibDems fight the next general election -- or, indeed, if they fight it as a distinct party in their current form.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

the button said:


> Right-wing bloggers like Guido Fawkes have been itching for the LibDems to split -- his latest one being a breakaway led by Simon Hughes (semi-believable cos the bloke's an egomaniac and probably desperate to lead something) and Vince Cable (wtf?).



Incidentally, why isn't Hansard reporting Dennis Skinner shouting "have you had any of the white stuff lately?" and "how many lines today?" at George Osborne earlier this week (as reported by the above blog)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

the button said:


> Leaving aside whether the "curbing the excesses" line is true or not, it's going to be a tough one to take come the next election. If your hustings position is "Yeah, I know, but you should see some of the mad shit they *wanted* to do lol," then: -
> 
> 1. The immediate question is why the fuck did you help put them into power and sign up to a measure that makes it harder to get rid of them (the 55% thing)?
> 2. It makes it a lot harder to form a second coalition goverment with them in the event of another hung parliament.
> ...



Come next election they'll be a political typhoid mary - tories will have had their use out of them, labour will be picking up their old tactical anti-vote thereby losing the lib-dems many many seats.


----------



## the button (Jun 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Come next election they'll be a political typhoid mary - tories will have had their use out of them, labour will be picking up their old tactical anti-vote thereby losing the lib-dems many many seats.



The old "vote LibDem, get Tory" line will be a lot more effective, certainly.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 13, 2010)

the button said:


> Right-wing bloggers like Guido Fawkes have been itching for the LibDems to split -- his latest one being a breakaway led by Simon Hughes (semi-believable cos the bloke's an egomaniac and probably desperate to lead something) and Vince Cable (wtf?).



Heh and I got derision when I suggested Cable quite to distance himself ready for a future leadership bid...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

But he's not done any such thing.  (Have another careful read of that post you've replied to as well)


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Jun 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> But he's not done any such thing.  (Have another careful read of that post you've replied to as well)



I did, guido isn't just itching for it, he's seeing a possible outcome.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

I meant the one where the chances of Cable leading a split was scoffed at, not the blog one. But ask yourself why a rabidly pro-tory blog would like to see a lib-dem split?


----------



## joevsimp (Jun 13, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 3 by-elections with lib-dem incumbents since the coaltion was formed. They lost two to the tories and one to the greens. That's their vanishing future writ small right there.



where were those btw?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 13, 2010)

joevsimp said:


> where were those btw?



Isle of wight
Whitle
Rugeley, Western Springs


----------



## free spirit (Jun 13, 2010)

the button said:


> Leaving aside whether the "curbing the excesses" line is true or not, it's going to be a tough one to take come the next election. If your hustings position is "Yeah, I know, but you should see some of the mad shit they *wanted* to do lol," then: -
> 
> 1. The immediate question is why the fuck did you help put them into power and sign up to a measure that makes it harder to get rid of them (the 55% thing)?
> 2. It makes it a lot harder to form a second coalition goverment with them in the event of another hung parliament.
> ...


1 - as I repeatedly pointed out at the time, once significant numbers of labour MP's had come out against a coalition, there was no option other than a tory government either with the lib dems in coalition, or as a minority government with the lib dems supporting them on a case by case basis. As for the 55% thing... no idea, I can sort of see the logic behind it, but don't think we should have gone for it.

2 - IMO the Lib Dems would need to be able to go into the next election with a track record they can point to of specific stuff that they'd done that wasn't in the tory manifesto, so presumably wouldn't have got done without the lib dems being in the coalition. If they can do this, then the next election could be ok, if not then they'll be pretty screwed probably. If done in this way (which really is the only way that regular coalition government systems can work), then I don't see it causing any problems with them going into coalition with either labour or tories after the next election if that option was available.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 14, 2010)

ericjarvis said:


> Of course Cameron isn't in charge. The billionaires that fund the Tory Party are in charge.



Fair point. But we'll have to wait and see if Clegg has the measure of them.


----------



## toblerone3 (Jun 14, 2010)

Jazzz said:


> Apparently in New Zealand, where coalition governments are a normality, it is common for the smaller of the two parties in the coalition to break up. So I heard.



Not true in Germany though.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2010)

Lib-dems defending another seat last night - lost it to labour. So 4 by-elections with lib-dem incumbents since the coaltion was formed. They've lost two to the tories, one to labour and one to the greens


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Jun 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems defending another seat last night - lost it to labour. So 4 by-elections with lib-dem incumbents since the coaltion was formed. They've lost two to the tories, one to labour and one to the greens


well at least one good thing came out the general election


----------



## cybertect (Jun 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems defending another seat last night - lost it to labour. So 4 by-elections with lib-dem incumbents since the coaltion was formed. They've lost two to the tories, one to labour and one to the greens



Was that a Parliamentary by-election? Or a local council one?

I can't find the story anywhere on the BBC, Guardian or Independent or the Telegraph web sites (at least in their UK politics sections - maybe it's filed under Sport or something? ).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2010)

East Lindsey North Holme district council.


----------



## cybertect (Jun 18, 2010)

OK. Ta


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 21, 2010)

Hmm, East and West Lindsey always used to be Libdem strongholds from what I remember.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 24, 2010)

17 % now 
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2010)

YG had them on 15% the day before as well.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 26, 2010)

Some analysis from the 'left' of the Lib Dems:

http://www.liberator.org.uk/article.asp?id=194604138



> CLOUDS IN THE CRYSTAL BALLS
> Not even historians now pay much attention to the National Liberals, the group that joined a Conservative-dominated coalition in 1931 and lingered on until 1968, though during the post-war period with only a name to distinguish them from the Tories.
> ...
> 
> ...



I love that line "Lib Dems are instead likely to become robustly hated"


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

**


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

Down to 16% in YG/Sunday Times 

This week:

16
17	
17	
15	
18
19
21
19	



> Support seems to be polarising around the two main parties.



Fucking get in! ICM poll _also_ has them on 16%, ICM had been the ones rating them higher than others as well.


----------



## Shevek (Jun 26, 2010)

but why is it good that support is polarising round the two main parties? Surely it would be better if support for all of them was slipping.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

Who said it was good? That was a brief summary of an expert opinion of what the polls suggest is taking place. What is _good_ that lib-dems are being wiped off the face of the earth.


----------



## Shevek (Jun 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Who said it was good? That was a brief summary of an expert opinion of what the polls suggest is taking place. What is _good_ that lib-dems are being wiped off the face of the earth.



you said 'fucking get in'


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 26, 2010)

At a second poll confirming the lib-dems collapse in the opinion polls.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 26, 2010)

I am afraid after the sell out to the tories i couldn't give a flying fart for the libdems.the likes of cable ,clegg,laws,huhne will probablly be later day national liberals they are so comfortable in the tory party.Simon Hughes is the problem he as been left outside as has been said on here is a meglomaniac and will throw tantrums at some time


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 27, 2010)

A piece worth reading 


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/27/lib-dems-vat-rise-anger-poll


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2010)

Sunday Independent:

Lib Dem rebels in secret talks with Labour on tactics to block Budget



> The discussions over co-ordinated "surgical strikes" on the Finance Bill, which will pass the Budget proposals into law, increase the risk of political embarrassment as Mr Osborne's emergency proposals become bogged down in Parliament. Labour hopes the guerrilla warfare against the Budget will destabilise the coalition.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2010)

'Cracks open in the Lib Dems

Posted by James Macintyre - 27 June 2010 10:11

Rebels prepare to disrupt Budget +++ Vince Cable grows increasingly uncomfortable ++ what will Charles Kennedy do?'

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/public-accounts/2010/06/kennedy-cable-budget


Bit more in the Staggers, rumours or facts?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2010)

Cable was far from looking uneasy this morning on BBC1 - he looked very comfortable indeed with all  this neo-liberal shit.


----------



## little_legs (Jun 27, 2010)

so it appears that the only positive thing the lib dems are able to deliver at the moment is keeping the far right of the conservative party (their backbenchers) from getting their policies pushed through.  a bunch of w...kers


----------



## the button (Jun 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Cable was far from looking uneasy this morning on BBC1 - he looked very comfortable indeed with all  this neo-liberal shit.



True. Danny Alexander looked a bit uneasy doing the same thing on The Politics Show, but then Danny Alexander would probably look a bit uneasy if you asked him what time it is. 

It is faintly amusing how the Tories are letting the LibDems do the "big interviews" about the budget -- but then the silly cunts should have realised that taking the number 2 and number 3 jobs in the Treasury would mean that they would get wheeled out when Gideon's too busy or too important to go on the telly.


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2010)

'so it appears that the only positive thing the lib dems are able to deliver at the moment is keeping the far right of the conservative party (their backbenchers) from getting their policies pushed through.  a bunch of w...kers'


er,I think you will find many of the far right lot are very happy with some of the policies, especially the ones on welfare, IDS's 'get on your bike' ffs!


----------



## treelover (Jun 27, 2010)

@the button

I wonder if anyone has analysed the body language of the LD's leaders, etc to identify whether indeed they are giving 'signs' that they are uncomfortable.


----------



## little_legs (Jun 27, 2010)

the button said:


> It is faintly amusing how the Tories are letting the LibDems do the "big interviews" about the budget -- but then the silly cunts should have realised that taking the number 2 and number 3 jobs in the Treasury would mean that they would get wheeled out when Gideon's too busy or too important to go on the telly.



i am guessing that's to ensure the support of the remaining 55 lib dem mps for the budget


----------



## little_legs (Jun 27, 2010)

treelover said:


> 'so it appears that the only positive thing the lib dems are able to deliver at the moment is keeping the far right of the conservative party (their backbenchers) from getting their policies pushed through.  a bunch of w...kers'
> 
> 
> er,I think you will find many of the far right lot are very happy with some of the policies, especially the ones on welfare, IDS's 'get on your bike' ffs!



yes, because the lib dems are not the party of the poor, they are the party of the fucked up rich people. i did not know that. i do now though.


----------



## FreddyB (Jun 27, 2010)

Half of Liberal Democrat voters ready to defect after VAT rise


----------



## the button (Jun 27, 2010)

Meanwhile, Caroline Lucas tweets relentlessly urging disillusioned LibDems to join the Greens.

(Making a play for people who enjoy being disappointed, presumably).


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 27, 2010)

Average of voting intension across all polls:


----------



## London_Calling (Jun 27, 2010)

What are they going to vote in?


----------



## Santino (Jun 27, 2010)

treelover said:


> @the button
> 
> I wonder if anyone has analysed the body language of the LD's leaders, etc to identify whether indeed they are giving 'signs' that they are uncomfortable.



Where's Derren Brown when you need him?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

Comres have a new poll for the Independent - lib-dems on 18% as well, -5 from CR's last one. You'll be the 2nd party when was it Clegg?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

btw, the YG figures show the lib-dems on 9% in Scotland


----------



## the button (Jun 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> btw, the YG figures show the lib-dems on 9% in Scotland



The Scots clearly delighted with the performance of one of their countrymen in the heart of government.


*Vince & Danny earlier*


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jun 29, 2010)

joining government = terrible call by the lib dems.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

...and the amazing thing is, these lib-dem losses are coming well before the cuts really kick in, when they expect to lose support. I bet they expected to be osing it from a far higher starting point though. 

YG reckon the lib-dem core vote (that is those who identify as being a lib-dem and will vote lib-dem no matter what) at 12%. I expect they'll be there soon enough.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 29, 2010)

I think they are gambling on being able to absorb the massive loses of councillors and MSPs and assembly members over the next three years, and then once the worst of the cuts are over claw it back over the last year into the election.

It's an extremely risky gamble however and not one I would bet on.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> btw, the YG figures show the lib-dems on 9% in Scotland



Scottish parliament election coming up next may they could take a hammering


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

Drive them into the ground.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 29, 2010)

The Lib Dem MPs know they will be annihilated in the next election so they may as well keep voting with the tories to keep the coalition together for a full five years. That's the worst case scenario.


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 29, 2010)

People including some on this board think public sector jobs are just fat overpaid lazy buggers ,but they will realise that 25% cuts will affect teachers ,firemen ,ambulance men,police and many more .these cuts will be felt by everyone


----------



## killer b (Jun 29, 2010)

my cousin works for the scottish liberal democrats.

i'm a little concerned about her continued employment...


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> The Lib Dem MPs know they will be annihilated in the next election so they may as well keep voting with the tories to keep the coalition together for a full five years. That's the worst case scenario.



That's the scenario right now.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 29, 2010)

killer b said:


> my cousin works for the scottish liberal democrats.
> 
> i'm a little concerned about her continued employment...



Better start looking for nessy.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 30, 2010)

killer b said:


> my cousin works for the scottish liberal democrats.
> 
> i'm a little concerned about her continued employment...



I would ring her up and laugh very loudly at the evil bint.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Cameron smiles, twists the knife:



> The prime minister insisted Mr Clegg played a big role in the development of policy.
> 
> "I want people who voted Liberal Democrat to know, not that they are being taken for a ride in some way - they are absolutely not. I don't take steps without consulting with Nick, we work very, very closely together," he said.



...and there's nothing whatsoever clegg can do now. Nothing.


----------



## Santino (Jun 30, 2010)

One way out would be to spring his resignation suddenly over some point of principle, and hope that the fuss around it made people forget the budget. They can always go for the 'but the global situation has changed again' line if they want to flip their economic policies.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

I think Clegg is personally very happy though, he loves this shit. I can't see what he would resign over -  even a totally engineered resignation would hurt them now. Every option a bad one.


----------



## Santino (Jun 30, 2010)

Something to do with Iraq or Afghanistan, something that can convincingly be sold as more important than domestic affairs. I'm not saying that it would work.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Lib-dems have been the biggest supporter of Afghanistan occupation, that would take throwing out another major policy. Iraq is pretty much over i think, as an electoral issue anyway. You're right that it would have be an international issue, domestically they've nailed their colours to the mast..  I'd love to see them/him try.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 30, 2010)

Cameron has certainly played a masterstroke in getting this coalition together. He can totally fuck over the country with a large proportion of the population happy to sit back and watch.


----------



## Santino (Jun 30, 2010)

I can't see how they'd pull it off. Assuming that a split led to a reasonably quick election, they'd need to start making noises about having a distinct economic policy from the Tories months before any actual resignation took place.


----------



## sihhi (Jun 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I think Clegg is personally very happy though, he loves this shit. I can't see what he would resign over -  even a totally engineered resignation would hurt them now. Every option a bad one.



Clegg loves it - Clegg will be an independent if the Lib Dems leave , the he may turn Conservative for another go as an MP or he might go straight into the House of Lords.

It's as if Labour and Tories are being revitalised with the "Never trust a politician" attitude being taken over by "Never trust a Liberal Democrat politician".


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 30, 2010)

dropped to 12% in Wales

http://www.itv.com/wales/labour-bounce-back26933/


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 30, 2010)

Tories on 20% as well.


----------



## xenon (Jul 1, 2010)

There fate will be in the hands of the long time Liberal voters. Tories will vote Tory. Disaffected Labour voters who voted LibDem this time, won't again. I must admit, I was one of those. Not exactly swept up in the rediculous self delusion, as witnessed in the Guardian. My expectations weren't high. But their so blatent about turn is sickmaking. They've destroyed they're credibility and demonstrated, they're just the Conservatives sheith.

 With out some rebirth of the Labour party as a true Social Democratically minded party (an unlikely prospect from here.) I'm out of mainstream voting.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 1, 2010)

It certainly is not easy to chose who you vote for not one of them with policies you can agree on .It seems to be a case of voting for the least worse.God help us


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2010)

YG have had them on 15% fir three days running now - latest one:

CON 42%, LAB 36%, LDEM 15%


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 3, 2010)

The Liberals are almost certainly going to lose control of Newcastle next year (small majority and 26 seats up for grabs in the next election), what other northern cities do they still hold?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2010)

List here

Sheff look well vulnerable. York, Hull, Burnely all to fall to labour. Loads of places with split LD/LAb votes and NOC (oldham, sefton, brum, warrington, Kirklees etc) going same way.


----------



## Quartz (Jul 3, 2010)

xenon said:


> But their so blatent about turn is sickmaking. They've destroyed they're credibility and demonstrated, they're just the Conservatives sheith.



Weren't people saying much the same thing in the 1970s, except with respect to Labour?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2010)

Capitals sheath maybe. Difference is that Labour had (and still do) historic ties to a class block, long entrenched local networks and influence, a history of national power and so on. The lib-dems have precisely none of these to protect them (the lack of significant collective upward social mobility from the w/c over the last 30 years cut off their chances of forming that class block and the cuts will now do the rest). Even after labours terrible 13 years of govt YG still estimate the core votes for each party as Conservative 28.5%, Labour 32.5%, Lib Dem 12%.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> List here
> 
> Sheff look well vulnerable. York, Hull, Burnely all to fall to labour. Loads of places with split LD/LAb votes and NOC (oldham, sefton, brum, warrington, Kirklees etc) going same way.



Interesting reading. I could easily see dozens of seats being lost to Plaid and Labour in Wales, the SNP and Greens in Scotland, and many parts of England they could lose to realistic challenges from Labour, Tories, Greens, Independents and even small groupings like the Liberals (continuity faction) and RA and community type candidates depending on the area. 

They are fucked really, there's a realistic alternative for disgruntled soft Libdem voters (and I'd wager their vote is softer than any other mainstream party (including the Nats) in almost every council area.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> YG have had them on 15% fir three days running now - latest one:
> 
> CON 42%, LAB 36%, LDEM 15%



Is there a Scottish poll anywhere?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 3, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Is there a Scottish poll anywhere?



There are figures for scotland within these YG national ones (pdf warning):

Labour 56%:
Tories 17%
LIb-dem swines 12%
Other 15%


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Jul 3, 2010)

Any of the people who voted Lib Dem and defended it post coalition still posting on this?

I've got no time for the Labour Party (and the fact that McDonnell got nowhere says it all) but it is hilarious to see the Lib Dems descending into the abyss.



> "I want people who voted Liberal Democrat to know, not that they are being taken for a ride in some way - they are absolutely not. I don't take steps without consulting with Nick, we work very, very closely together," he said.



That is a master stroke.


----------



## killer b (Jul 3, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The Liberals are almost certainly going to lose control of Newcastle next year (small majority and 26 seats up for grabs in the next election), what other northern cities do they still hold?


they're in a scum coalition in preston, but i'd be massively surprised if labour don't take it again next elections - i think they're only 3 or 4 seats off a majority.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

Lib-dems swines _again_ on 15% in YG's latest.

 CON 41%, LAB 36%, LDEM 15%, Others 9%.

Down to 8% in Scotland. 12% amongst the sociological working class.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> There are figures for scotland within these YG national ones (pdf warning):
> 
> Labour 56%:
> Tories 17%
> ...



Those are pretty incredible figures....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

It gets better if you check the latest (pdf warning)


----------



## rioted (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> LAB 36%


Goody, goody. They might get back in again soon and we can all breath a sigh of relief.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It gets better if you check the latest (pdf warning)



I'm assuming this is Westminster voting intentions as I can't see the SNP doing that badly. But the figures for the Lib Dems is remarkable.....


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> I'm assuming this is Westminster voting intentions as I can't see the SNP doing that badly. But the figures for the Lib Dems is remarkable.....



Yep it is for Westminster.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yep it is for Westminster.



Aaaahh, I forgot to add after 'SNP doing that badly' 'in the Holyrood elections', which are next year.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> Aaaahh, I forgot to add after 'SNP doing that badly' 'in the Holyrood elections', which are next year.



That labour figure for Scotland is pretty remarkable too - 49%


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2010)

i am no statistician, but i am not entirely sure how reprsentative the scottish polling numbers are for the rest of the country. 

also... is anyone here worried about labour being pushed to the right again? i am referring to the prisoner announcement made by that clarke swine. labour had to come out and say that the crime went down because people *are* being put in prisons and that the prisons are effective crime fighting means. it just sounds like something michael howard would say. am i being naive here?


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

little_legs said:


> i am no statistician, but i am not entirely sure how reprsentative the scottish polling numbers are for the rest of the country.



The Scottish figures are _within_ the national polling figures. They're not the Scottish figures being extrapolated across the whole country.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> The Scottish figures are _within_ the national polling figures. They're not the Scottish figures being extrapolated across the whole country.



sure, i get that. i am not sure if the fact that labour is doing well there is something to be optimistic about.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 7, 2010)

little_legs said:


> sure, i get that. i am not sure if the fact that labour is doing well there is something to be optimistic about.



No one is optimistic.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

little_legs said:


> sure, i get that. i am not sure if the fact that labour is doing well there is something to be optimistic about.



It's nothing at all to be optimistic about. Nonetheless, near 50% is pretty extraordinary i think.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> That labour figure for Scotland is pretty remarkable too - 49%



It is yes, Labour would be crowing about that. However in reality all it would meaqn is more wankers with the Labour rosette representing working people up here.... Echoes of the 'feeble fifty'.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 7, 2010)

Fedayn said:


> It is yes, Labour would be crowing about that. However in reality all it would meaqn is more wankers with the Labour rosette representing working people up here.... Echoes of the 'feeble fifty'.



Back to the 1980s.


----------



## treelover (Jul 7, 2010)

Due to not being completetely annihilated in the GE(just look at how many NL figures are still in the HOC) I get the impression the LP doesn't feel any real need to change, just to update its presentation.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 7, 2010)

12% lol


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 7, 2010)

One of my friends who had a Lib dem Logo as his profile picture has now removed the liberal democrats from his list of pages, i know that sounds really daft but at one point about 20 of my friends were fans of the lib dems and now that is down by about half lol.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 7, 2010)

Using YG's figures, since the General Election

Tory +7%
Labour +8%
Lib dems -13%.


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Using YG's figures, since the General Election
> 
> Tory +7%
> Labour +8%
> Lib dems -13%.



It's likely to be higher then.


----------



## glenquagmire (Jul 7, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Using YG's figures, since the General Election
> 
> Tory +7%
> Labour +8%
> Lib dems -13%.



On the left we've heard about all those disillusioned LDs coming over to L but if that's right then about as many LD voters have defected to C as to L. Presumably because they are right of centre and see no point in supporting the junior partner in a coalition? Would be interesting to find out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 16, 2010)

15% for three days running now and another 4 councillors lost last night.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2010)

If anyone has access to the firewalled Sunday Times Yougov poll can they post the details up please? I suspect they're bad for the lib-dems - i only have:

Latest YouGov/Sunday Times poll shows Government disapproval up 12 points since this time last month.(42% approve, 37% disapprove, 21% DK) from YG


----------



## gentlegreen (Jul 18, 2010)

Sadly, still no sign of a vote-worthy Labour party .


----------



## little_legs (Jul 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> *If anyone has access to the firewalled Sunday Times Yougov poll can they post the details up please?*



is this data only available on their website? the newsbank _sunday times_ is not showing any polls and i have the copy of today's _sunday times_ that does not have have any polls either.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 18, 2010)

I don't actually know - that was from the official YG twitter thing. Ta for that, just have to wait for a bit i suppose.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 18, 2010)

gentlegreen said:


> Sadly, still no sign of a vote-worthy Labour party .



First of all that's irrelevant.

Secondly it's wrong as far as many are concerned


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 21, 2010)

The tv recorder will be switched on this lunchtime in the Cleggie household as, in the absence of Disco Dave, Nick takes PMQ's for the first time. 

90 years of hurt  . . .

BBC2, from 11.30am I'd guess.


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2010)

Lib Dems on 14%: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2750


----------



## Idris2002 (Jul 21, 2010)

London_Calling said:


> The tv recorder will be switched on this lunchtime in the Cleggie household as, in the absence of Disco Dave, Nick takes PMQ's for the first time.
> 
> 90 years of hurt  . . .
> 
> BBC2, from 11.30am I'd guess.


 
'Lloyd George knew my mother'.


----------



## belboid (Jul 21, 2010)

excellent job from Cleggie in his first PMQ's.  Well, apart from having to issue a 'clarification' almost immediately afterwards saying his attack in the illegality of the Iraq war  was just the personal opinion of Mr N Clegg Esq, and not the DPM.

Still, David Steel thought he did a good job, and told PM (the programme that is, not the actual PM) how people were always coming up to him saying how happy they were the liberals were in the coalition.  Presumably those people are labour voters delighted at the collapse of the liberal vote.


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 21, 2010)

belboid said:


> Still, David Steel thought he did a good job, and told PM (the programme that is, not the actual PM) how people were always coming up to him saying how happy they were the liberals were in the coalition.  Presumably those people are labour voters delighted at the collapse of the liberal vote.


 
And presumably not in his former Scottish constituency or in wider Scotland where the Lib Dum vote is collapsing.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jul 21, 2010)

A good friend in Oxford West (Kidlington, not the poshest areas!) always voted for Evan Harris, mostly as a tactical anti Tory vote  but also because EH wasn't too bad at all as a local MP. He lost (just) to a fairly nasty(and raving Christian) Tory at the GE, but my mate now says nearly everyone he knows locally who used to vote Lib Dem tactically won't ever do so again. Not surprising, but probably quite representative ...


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 21, 2010)

Just passing through, but tomorrows yougov has them on...13%


----------



## Santino (Jul 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Just passing through


 
*waves*


----------



## killer b (Jul 21, 2010)

belboid said:


> Presumably those people are labour voters delighted at the collapse of the liberal vote.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 21, 2010)

The labour vote is interesting especially a party with out a elected leader and no team in place to really oppose but still higher than the election result.Butchers have you a link for that 13% for LD


----------



## London_Calling (Jul 22, 2010)

He got a little carried away with himself in all the excitement:


> Philippe Sands, professor of law at University College London, said: "A public statement by a government minister in parliament as to the legal situation would be a statement that an international court would be interested in, in forming a view as to whether or not the war was lawful."


plus:


> The deputy prime minister made an initial mistake when he announced that the government would close the Yarl's Wood centre as it ends the detention of children awaiting deportation. The Home Office was forced to issue a statement saying that the family unit at Yarl's Wood would close but that the rest of the centre would remain open


Opps x 2.


and then there was the issue of which hat he was wearing when:


> Asked whether Clegg had been speaking as the leader of the Liberal Democrats and not as deputy prime minister, a Downing Street spokeswoman said: "Yes."





> The deputy prime minister insisted he was speaking in a personal capacity


So he has three hats, Deputy PM, Leader of the Lib Dems, and a "personal capacity", and we have to guess which hat he's wearing at any given point.

Seems a bit excitable.

(((Nick)))


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

If you think the first was gaffe rather than a planned desperate left-playing bid then you're wrong. The others were sheer incompetence.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 22, 2010)

...also revenge, sweet revenge:



> Labour would demand the resignation of Nick Clegg before doing a deal with the Liberal Democrats in a future hung parliament, a senior Labour figure has said


----------



## frogwoman (Jul 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...also revenge, sweet revenge:


----------



## little_legs (Jul 25, 2010)

> Nick Clegg is to hold public meetings across the country this summer to boost support for the Liberal Democrats, after the party plummeted to 13% in the polls.



link http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/25/clegg-tour-to-boost-support


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 26, 2010)

I don't think he'll be welcome in Newcastle where the party do not want to remind people they're associated with him.


----------



## treelover (Jul 26, 2010)

Will we witness the first ever protests against the LD's and certainly the Liberals since the early 1900's


----------



## Santino (Jul 26, 2010)

treelover said:


> Will we witness the first ever protests against the LD's and certainly the Liberals since the early 1900's


 
The New Politics


----------



## belboid (Jul 26, 2010)

treelover said:


> Will we witness the first ever protests against the LD's and certainly the Liberals since the early 1900's


 
there've been plenty of protests against Liberal councils!


----------



## belboid (Jul 26, 2010)

"Four in 10 people who say they voted Lib Dem would not have done had they known the party would enter a coalition with the Tories"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8854870.stm


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 27, 2010)

Labour closing in on tories C40 L38 LD 14


http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2643


----------



## Santino (Jul 29, 2010)

What a fucking cunt.



> Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader and deputy prime minister, has admitted that he changed his mind about the timing of spending cuts prior to the general election, despite publicly telling the electorate weeks before the poll that early deep cuts would be "economic masochism".



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/29/nick-clegg-changed-mind-cuts


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 29, 2010)

Santino said:


> What a fucking cunt.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jul/29/nick-clegg-changed-mind-cuts


 
Makes him Vince Cable's perfect partner given they both admitted to changing their minds, ie lying, before the election.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jul 29, 2010)

I'm sorely tempted to get three cheapo hats from Castle Market and to write "Lib Dem Leader", "Deputy PM" and "Personal Capacity" on them. Then I can drop them into Cleggo's constituency office with advice that he use them to show the electorate in which capacity he is speaking at any given time.


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 30, 2010)

Starting to get the wind up now LD r.i.p

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...uilt-by-association-with-osborne-2039129.html


----------



## Combustible (Jul 30, 2010)

Dismal result for the Lib Dems in Bilston North (Wolverhampton) by-election (Lab Gain from Con)

Linda Leach (Labour) 1,292
Marlene Berry (Conservative) 460
Stewart Gardiner (BNP) 131
Barry Hodgson (UKIP) 55
Darren Friel (Lib Dem) 52


----------



## emanymton (Jul 30, 2010)

And a massive shift to Labour


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 30, 2010)

It's hard to tell without the previous result how badly the Liberals have plummeted.


----------



## Combustible (Jul 30, 2010)

Down from 663 in May (different councillor and higher turnout).


----------



## killer b (Jul 30, 2010)

found this earlier, which gives an overview of all the recent byelections...


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 31, 2010)

Sunday times as paywall but got this 
C42 L38 LD12

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/07/31/yougov-have-the-lib-dems-at-12/?

and this
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2010)




----------



## stethoscope (Aug 1, 2010)

On Liberal Conspiracy too, today's yougov puts Lib Dems on 12%


----------



## little_legs (Aug 1, 2010)

this article seems to blame clegg for the dip 

From the Sunday Times:



> *Lib Dem troubles deepen as Clegg ratings nosedive
> Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, August 1, 2010 *Author: Isabel Oakeshott; David Smith
> 
> SUPPORT for the Liberal Democrats has fallen to 12%, a third of the party's peak during the election campaign and half its share of the vote at the election.
> ...


----------



## killer b (Aug 1, 2010)

the labour ratings are interesting, considering they're headless atm - think there's a chance they'll even overtake the tories once they have a leader?


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 1, 2010)

Clegg is certainly the weakest link .Going from being mr honest give me a chance ,to a shitbag i want power at all cost.Labour must be happy a year ago they were facing a chasm looking at a tory landslide tory win ,and out of power for a generation to the tories not getting a majority and labour holding a lot of seats.Quite right labour have no leader and no team in place and are polling high


----------



## vokey (Aug 1, 2010)

"A spokesman for Clegg insisted that he had not finally concluded that immediate cuts were necessary until the last week of the election campaign. "The balance was shifting from March, but didn't shift decisively until later," the spokesman said."

What a cunt.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Aug 2, 2010)

When is that video of him from? The one where he says quick, deep cuts would be a disaster for Britain? April I think. He didn't look much like a man who 'thought the balance was changing" then.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2010)

Lib-dems again at 12%. You clowns are f-u-c-k-e-d.

f-u-c-k-e-d clowns.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems again at 12%. You clowns are f-u-c-k-e-d.
> 
> f-u-c-k-e-d clowns.


 
Define "you".

I think you'll find there ain't much "you" left.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2010)

Define you then? How else are you making your second line?

The defenders are still here/there.

Still, at least we didn't get PR.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Define you then? How else are you making your second line?


Que?



butchersapron said:


> The defenders are still here/there.


They are?  Seriously?

Well they're fucking idiots then.

And yes, I know you'll find irony in that.


----------



## discokermit (Aug 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems again at 12%. You clowns are f-u-c-k-e-d.
> 
> f-u-c-k-e-d clowns.


 
i've missed you.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2010)

discokermit said:


> i've missed you.


 
I fear it shall be a fleeting visit - time and off board shit not on my side right now...


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 2, 2010)

discokermit said:


> i've missed you.


 
I have missed butchers lively comments


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 2, 2010)

Corax said:


> Que?
> 
> 
> They are?  Seriously?
> ...


 
They are yes. I can sense them. They say things like 'reining in' or 'diluting'.


----------



## Corax (Aug 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> They are yes. I can sense them. They say things like 'reining in' or 'diluting'.



I refer the gentleman to the answer I gave some moments ago.



Corax said:


> Well they're fucking idiots then.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 8, 2010)

no lib dem figures this weekend, but yougov was polling people on other matters:



> *Cameron is no Blair, says poll*
> Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, August 8, 2010
> Author: David Smith
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 8, 2010)

There was - times/YG - 13%, that's what they/ve stablised on. Before the next plunge. 34% 3 months ago...


----------



## little_legs (Aug 8, 2010)

more polling data from FT: 



> *Public support wanes for voting reforms*
> Financial Times (London, England) - Saturday, August 7, 2010
> Author: Barker, Alex ; Pickard, Jim ; Stacey, Kiran
> 
> ...


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 9, 2010)

Thanks little legs for your postings from the times


----------



## little_legs (Aug 14, 2010)

some data in toynbee's piece _*Cameron's Mr Nice act still fools some, but the pain is a wake-up call*_ from yesterday: 





> David Cameron's hundred days is up next week – and the honeymoon is over. YouGov shows Labour on 37%, Tories on 42%. Approval for the coalition is down from a June peak of +21 to +1 and falling. What makes this extraordinary is that leaderless Labour, semi-absent from the fray, scores more than the Tories won at the election. With Labour likely to choose a clever leader, Cameron might just be as short-lived as his predecessor.



link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/13/cameron-mr-nice-public-sector


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Aug 15, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> Thanks little legs for your postings from the times



It's the Financial Times, not the Times.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2010)

I see 4 labour MPs have joined the unholy alliance like fucking rats.

And the vision of a huge one party monolith fucking everyone over was anti-communist propaganda!


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2010)

You what?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 15, 2010)

This, I think:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-10977806



> Former Labour cabinet minister Alan Milburn has accepted a role as social mobility tsar to the coalition government, it has been confirmed...
> 
> ... Mr Milburn joins other senior Labour figures who have agreed to offer their independent advice to the government.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2010)

Well all that's changed then is Milburn possibly accepting a role.  Worth noting neither he nor Hutton are MPs. The two that are haven't taken any Tory or lib-dem whip either. Rats they are but they were rats before.


----------



## smokedout (Aug 15, 2010)

Sunday Mirror were reporting that Blunketts in talks as well


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 15, 2010)

Blunkett is leading Clegg up the garden path to damage him.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 15, 2010)

I'll get him, and his little dog too.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 17, 2010)

This poll from the daily mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1302950/After-100-days-No-10-honeymoon-Coalition.html

the mail fails to have an headline figure for party support but tries to extract bits to bum up the tories 

but from what i read c29 lab 28 ld12


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2010)

ICM/Guardian have tory and labour both on 37% tonight -first time for 3 years and only 3 month into the new govt.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 17, 2010)

it's the freedom loving ass announcements all week for clegg: 




> *Clegg takes charge as tensions surface in the coalition*
> Times, The (London, England) - Monday, August 16, 2010
> Author: Suzy Jagger
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2010)

> and on Saturday he will head to Bristol for a public meeting.



I am so going to that.


----------



## killer b (Aug 17, 2010)

will you be throwing rotten fruit, or pithy commentary?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 17, 2010)

Not decided yet. Open to suggestions.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 17, 2010)

Neither. Roll with the punches.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 17, 2010)

he might not get a good reception in sheffiled either, unless his party people ensure he is surrounded by his admirers. 

it's not easy to get into the meetings with this guy. the other day he came to our place, they vetted everyone like crazy, i though they'd start finger printing people. and it's bullshit when they say that clegg & cameron are modest with their cars and the security detail, it was a cortege of at least 6 massive black cars, looked like a mob.


----------



## Santino (Aug 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Not decided yet. Open to suggestions.


 
Something basic to the coalition, e.g. massive spending cuts. Float some of those figures about the relative size of the debt and the extra wealth generated last year by the richest 10% of the population.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Aug 17, 2010)

Stand on his neck.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 17, 2010)

SKY has them on 8% - Yes 8%.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Po...News_For_Nick_Clegg_As_Lib_Dem_Support_Slumps

Lib Dems in local councils can always be attacked for betraying people.
Ask them to resign the party whip. Their local promises always conflict with coalition spending plans. Attack them and attack them hard.


----------



## Santino (Aug 17, 2010)

Sky's polls aren't worth the cheap graphics they're displayed on.


----------



## sihhi (Aug 17, 2010)

Santino said:


> Sky's polls aren't worth the cheap graphics they're displayed on.


 
Obviously they are skewed to the right, but 

http://www1.sky.com/news/coalition2.htm

does show the general trend of a massive collapse in Lib Dem support even amongst SKY viewers - anything you can rib them with is OK.

All polls so soon into the cycle are meaningless anyway.


----------



## Santino (Aug 18, 2010)

Sky 'polls' are particularly meaningless in that they are not based on any actual polling methodology. It's not a poll of voters balanced to reflect anything, it's a 'Sky panel'.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 18, 2010)

The guardians mealy mouthed headline was people support coalition economic policy.Not that a leader less labour party that is hardly even opposing the coalition ,is on an equal percentage .And their chums the libdems are going towards single figures.why they can't just say their sorry for coming out for libdems


----------



## Fez909 (Aug 18, 2010)

BBC said:
			
		

> Mr Hughes also suggested that a coalition between the Lib Dems and Labour was "still on the agenda" for after the next general election.



Link

lol


----------



## killer b (Aug 18, 2010)

i think this bit is funnier:




			
				simon cunt hughes said:
			
		

> Liberal Democrat MPs should have a veto on policies put forward by the coalition government


..

sure, sure. what sanctions can they feasible threaten the tories with?


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 18, 2010)

Looking forward to these scum's electoral meltdown. Cancer - pure and simple.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

But..but..hang on, there are no buts...into the ground with you.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

killer b said:


> i think this bit is funnier:
> 
> ..
> 
> sure, sure. what sanctions can they feasible threaten the tories with?



I believe the important bit there is to be _seen_ ss doing something - unlike Clegg - positioning themselves for post-break up competition. Hughes is up to his ears in it in reality. Every last stinking one of them is.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

Hilariously dishonest reading of the ICM poll in the guardian today - it shows a minority of those polled support the economic plans of the coalition (44%) at this point in time (i.e before April when they'll really kick in) yet the headline /lead in is: *Coalition winning argument on economy – poll Guardian/ICM poll to mark 100 days of coalition shows strong support for government's cuts-based recovery strategy* - they do a similar paint job on all the other figures. 

edit:In the same article they call 44% saying the coalition are doing well on the economy as 'strong support', but somehow 46% thinking the tory lib-dem coalition doing a good job is only 'reasonably popular'.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 18, 2010)

This crap appears in the later coverage for example:



> Few people seem to query the need for drastic spending cuts.



It's almost like they've been told to hold a line.

Oh, there's more, plenty more:

_An excellent interactive shows the key relationships in the coalition and how well they are working._ Does it have a smug variable i wonder?

And don't describe a thing as _an interactive_ either.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 18, 2010)

I wonder how many fans on facebook the peoples' prince Raoul Moat would've got if he'da declared war on the lib dem trash instead of the northumbrian constabulary? Far more I would reckon - at least 2 million.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 18, 2010)

It does beg the question - who are the 13 thick cunt % who still support the Libdems? Bloggers I would wager. Gruaniad journalist aspiring fucking bloggers.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Aug 18, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> It does beg the question - who are the 13 thick cunt % who still support the Libdems? Bloggers I would wager. Gruaniad journalist aspiring fucking bloggers.


 
Lib Dem councillors. Lib Dem councillors' partners. Lib Dem councillors' mums.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 19, 2010)

nick clegg is not just a tory, he is a retard too. he went to visit a local hall which is planned to be closed by the local tory government. what a wally. 



> '*Bad parenting is bigger threat than poverty' - Social mobility is key government priority, says Clegg*
> 
> Times, The (London, England) - Thursday, August 19, 2010
> Author: Sam Coates
> ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 19, 2010)

The Guardian the other day said:
			
		

> Few people seem to query the need for drastic spending cuts.



I briefly skimmed the article containing that outrageously questionable line the other day but couldn't for the life of me find any actual poll figure to justify it ....

Niot just the Guardian at fault either for suggesting that 'everyone accepts the need for cuts' -- the BBC are pretty good at peddling that one too frinstance, in most of their TV 'news' coverage.

In (slight) defence of the Guardian, at lest they _sometimes_ carry op-ed articles by sounder types, strongly opposing the ConDems and cuts. Not often enough though.


----------



## killer b (Aug 19, 2010)

why do you bother defending them at all now william? fuck their fig leaves, frankly.


----------



## little_legs (Aug 21, 2010)

oh well, it turns out sir phillip green was appointed without clegg's knowledge, hence: 

*from The Times:*


> Nick Clegg has carried out a shake-up of his closest advisers as it emerged that he did not know in advance about the appointment of Sir Philip Green.



the details of the 'shake-up': 



> The changes to Mr Clegg 's office, which were implemented in the past week before the furore about Sir Philip, are designed to address those concerns. The principal change is to create a chief of staff for Mr Clegg , a post that will be filled by Jonny Oates, the former Lib Dem communications director and Bell Pottinger lobbyist. He will oversee twice-daily meetings with Mr Clegg 's inner circle. Mr Oates will move to Mr Clegg 's Cabinet Office suite from Downing Street, where he worked alongside Andy Coulson, the Government's director of communications. Mr Oates will be replaced by Lena Pietsch, Mr Clegg 's press secretary, who will become deputy director of communications at Downing Street with responsibility for Lib Dems across the Government. James McGrory will move from Downing Street to the Cabinet Office to replace Ms Pietsch as Mr Clegg 's political spokesman. Mr Colbourne, a former adviser to Mark Oaten when he was home affairs spokesman, will join the Downing Street team to replace Mr McGrory.



he is also not getting any love on his tour: 



> *Leader faces show of anger from region fearing cuts*
> Times, The (London, England) - Friday, August 20, 2010
> 
> The Deputy Prime Minister stood accused yesterday of betraying voters in the North East by supporting spending cuts that were part of a Tory "ideological crusade" to attack the weakest members of society.
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 21, 2010)

Dead Men on furlough - a phrase and description that someone like Clegg doesn't really deserve. It was used by the communists in Germany in the early 20s to describe their almost definite death, but their desire to do what they thought need to be done regardless of outcome. Clegg doesn't deserve to be named with these heroes - but he is as dead a man as any political figure has ever been. May you rot, may you die.


----------



## Urbanblues (Aug 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Dead Men on furlough - a phrase and description that someone like Clegg doesn't really deserve. It was used by the communists in Germany in the early 20s to describe their almost definite death, but their desire to do what they thought need to be done regardless of outcome. Clegg doesn't deserve to be named with these heroes - but he is as dead a man as any political figure has ever been. May you rot, may you die.


 
Better he rots, but lives.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 21, 2010)

To me as someone from the greater london area ,tax,child benefit ,social security admin should be moved to areas of high unemployment.That is why the north east and scotland have a lot of public sector jobs.It makes sense


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2010)

Britain needs an underground Maoist movement imvho:



> 凡是对抗第二次社会主义革命、对抗无产阶级专政的反革命右派分子，一律监督改造，对于态度恶劣的反革 命分 子坚决实行镇压！
> 
> Every counter-revolutionary right-wing element who has risen up against the second socialist revolution and who opposed the proletarian dictatorship will be forcefully re-educated under supervision. Those counter-revolutionary elements who have an especially malign and reactionary attitude will be suppressed without mercy!



http://www.socialistunity.com/?p=6455

Seems reasonable enough.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Aug 21, 2010)

> 凡是携款外逃的贪官，无论他逃到那里都要坚决追捕和通缉归案！对于拒不归案的贪官，无论他躲藏在哪里 ，都 要不惜一切代价就地处决。
> 
> All corrupt officials who have escaped overseas with large amounts of money, will be chased down and arrested no matter where in the world he/she has escaped to! Those who refuse to repent for their political crimes, no matter where they are located in the world, will be executed at any cost.



Watch your back Philip Green!


----------



## little_legs (Aug 22, 2010)

holding at 12%

from the Sunday Times:



> *'Liability' Clegg to be sidelined on poll reform*
> Sunday, August 22, 2010
> 
> NICK CLEGG is to be sidelined from his party's campaign to change the voting system amid fears that it will end in embarrassment.
> ...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 22, 2010)

Jeff Robinson said:


> Watch your back Philip Green!



The Kasama lot seem to like taking photos of Nepali Maoist rebel girls and then wank over them.

The best Yank Maoist loons are to be found at the Monkey Smashes Heaven blog.


----------



## killer b (Aug 22, 2010)

msh is a fantastic read. discovered it a few months ago, unsurprisingly while looking for pictures of joe stalin...


----------



## Captain Hurrah (Aug 22, 2010)

From the same lot who used to be part of the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Movement.  The name of the blog is a good one but it's all very revengist though.  Which is funny, considering it's written by white middle class people in the States.  They aren't First World parasites, but the "white trash" working class are.

They're quite self-regarding.



> Maoism-Third Worldism is the fourth and highest stage of proletarian science


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

First 0% approval for coalition - and 12% for lib-dem rats.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Aug 23, 2010)

Where's that from butchers?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

Here

Oh yeah , the full figures are:

CON 41%, LAB 39%, LDEM 12%.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Aug 23, 2010)

Cheers. They haven't even started to burn.


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 23, 2010)

8 months to get worse yet...


----------



## William of Walworth (Aug 24, 2010)

*Just saw this*




			
				killer b said:
			
		

> why do you bother defending them at all now william? fuck their fig leaves, frankly.



Not sure why I did tbh  , especially in the context of that ludicrously bad poll story last week, which pissed me off no less than it would any other coalition hater here.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Aug 24, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> First 0% approval for coalition - and 12% for lib-dem rats.


 
Lol


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 24, 2010)

...and now they're (the coalition) into the first negative approval ratings. -2%






CON 41%, LAB 38%, LDEM 13% on todays tracker.


----------



## shagnasty (Aug 27, 2010)

This should be interesting 13 council seat in a night in this council

http://www.advertiser24.co.uk/conte...gory=News&itemid=NOED26+Aug+2010+22:16:13:560


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 1, 2010)

11% now guys and gals

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/a...paign=Feed:+PollingReport+(UK+Polling+Report)


----------



## little_legs (Sep 1, 2010)

yeah, but clegg'll be happy with his followers' poll and will be brandishing it in all interviews. 



> *Lib Dem members give poll boost to Clegg *
> Financial Times (London, England) - Wednesday, September 1, 2010
> Author: Stacey, Kiran
> 
> ...


----------



## Santino (Sep 7, 2010)

The Guardian said:
			
		

> Labour is reaping the benefit from the Liberal Democrats' decision to enter into coalition, according to a poll published today which shows Nick Clegg's party has lost the support of almost four in 10 of people who backed it in May.
> 
> Research by ComRes for the Independent shows that just 62% of those who supported the Lib Dems on 6 May said they would do so again if a general election were held today.



lol

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/sep/07/lib-dem-voters-desert-party


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 8, 2010)

lib-dems rock solid on 12% tonight.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 8, 2010)

Surprised it's still that high. I mean, I know there are ultra-rightwing extremists like moonpig23 out there but I wouldn't have thought they'd've (that should be a word) constituted 12% of the population. We live in strange times.


----------



## JimW (Sep 10, 2010)

Read something on the BBC about the former Tory leader losing his seat in Norwich which he puts down to the Lib Dem vote collapsing and going to Labour  

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-11255259


----------



## ymu (Sep 10, 2010)

__

Lib Dems, eh? Can't rule without 'em, can't win with 'em.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 12, 2010)

lib dems are now at 14%. in other news ed miliband has pulled ahead of david. apologies, it's a long article with lots of figures. 



> *Shock poll gives lead to Ed Miliband - Ed edges ahead of David*
> Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, September 12, 2010
> Author: Isabel Oakeshott
> 
> ...


----------



## killer b (Sep 12, 2010)

> people were split on whether Ed was too close to the trade unions and would give them too much power if he won. While 27% said this was likely to be the case, 24% disagreed.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 14, 2010)

Coalition *-8%* tonight. 37% approve and 45% disapprove.

Where do the dead men go?


----------



## Santino (Sep 14, 2010)

UKPollingReport's uniform swing projection now predicts Labour short of an overall majority (by 23) rather than the Tories.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Sep 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Coalition *-8%* tonight. 37% approve and 45% disapprove.
> 
> Where do the dead men go?


 
Straight to Hell.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Sep 14, 2010)

Down to 12%


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 16, 2010)

Nick Clegg is currently getting torn to pieces on a live web chat hosted by Mumsnet:

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet...msnet-this-Thursday-16th-Sept-evening-between

The Lib Dems are _fucked_


----------



## killer b (Sep 16, 2010)

gosh. there didn't seem to be much love there did there? and mumsnet is hardly any kind of bastion of the left - i seem to remember disco himself being warmly recieved in a similar webchat before the election...


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 17, 2010)

killer b said:


> gosh. there didn't seem to be much love there did there? and mumsnet is hardly any kind of bastion of the left - i seem to remember disco himself being warmly recieved in a similar webchat before the election...


 `Mum knows best


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2010)

New ipsos/mori which supports the ongoing yougovs and the Comres poll last week - yougov have coalition approval stabilising in the negative only 3 months in:



> The Labour Party has pulled level with the Conservatives for the first time since January 2008. The Conservatives, at 37%, are holding their May general election share, while Labour is up seven points, the Liberal Democrats are down eight, a 3.5% swing back to Labour. The government now has a negative satisfaction rating – the first time this has happened since the election.
> 
> Ipsos MORI's September Political Monitor for Reuters shows that, among those who are absolutely certain to vote (62% vs. 65% at the General Election in May), 37% say they would vote Conservative, 37% Labour and 15% Liberal Democrat.
> 
> The swing to Labour is particularly evident among young people, those in social grade DE (i.e. semi-skilled and unskilled manual workers and those who depend entirely on benefits), and those outside the south of England. This may reflect recent coverage that such groups may be particularly affected by impending spending cuts. The Liberal Democrat score is nine points lower than the party’s actual voting share in the general election.


----------



## killer b (Sep 17, 2010)

we had a council by-election yesterday: lib dem hold, but the numbers aren't pretty for them:

John POTTER (Lib Dem) 721 (43.1% -14.0)
John YOUNG (Labour) 476 (28.5% +20.8)
David WALKER (Cons) 475 (28.4% -6.9)


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 17, 2010)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Nick Clegg is currently getting torn to pieces on a live web chat hosted by Mumsnet:
> 
> http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet...msnet-this-Thursday-16th-Sept-evening-between
> 
> The Lib Dems are _fucked_



Ha ha ha, that is glorious.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 17, 2010)

innit


----------



## Streathamite (Sep 17, 2010)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Nick Clegg is currently getting torn to pieces on a live web chat hosted by Mumsnet:
> 
> http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet...msnet-this-Thursday-16th-Sept-evening-between
> 
> The Lib Dems are _fucked_


christ, the sheer power of the anger, disappointment and contempt on there actually _shook_ me!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2010)

Going to have to read this now.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 17, 2010)

Its brilliant


----------



## creak (Sep 17, 2010)

Wow, the mumsnet thread is fantastic


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Sep 17, 2010)

NiCk cleRG: Some mothers have had him.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 17, 2010)

Lol. He got eaten alive.


----------



## rikwakefield (Sep 17, 2010)

Fair play to him for even doing it IMO.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 17, 2010)

rikwakefield said:


> Fair play to him for even doing it IMO.


 
Fuck that. He's just tying to revive the corpse of the Liberals.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Sep 17, 2010)

rikwakefield said:


> Fair play to him for even doing it IMO.



fuck off, he thought it would be an easy ride - he went on there to talk about all the geerreeaate things the government are going to do for women in the developing world and expected the same nice fuzzy treatment as call me Dave. It was a superbly executed ambush.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 17, 2010)

rikwakefield said:


> Fair play to him for even doing it IMO.


 
Since when has greasy transparent desperation - and sexist desperation at that - been 'fair play'. You were mugged by Obama, have you been mugged by Clegg too?


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 17, 2010)

Fabulous. Well done, Mums.

Right, who's going to ring him up and say Urban75 is a mild-mannered forum sympathetic to the Coalition and positively _crawling_ with LibDems?


----------



## the button (Sep 17, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Fabulous. Well done, Mums.
> 
> Right, who's going to ring him up and say Urban75 is a mild-mannered forum sympathetic to the Coalition and positively _crawling_ with LibDems?



That's true though.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Sep 17, 2010)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> Urban75 is... positively _crawling_ with LibDems?


 
It was pre-election...


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 17, 2010)

Somebody called *treedelivery* on Mumsnet posted this:



> Hmmm. Not loving the meconium coloured highlight. Is that Lib Dem yellow with a good blob of tory blue thrown in?



in response to the unfortunate background hue of Clegg's first reply. For some reason this made me laugh a lot.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 17, 2010)

*blob*


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 17, 2010)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Somebody called *treedelivery* on Mumsnet posted this:
> 
> 
> 
> in response to the unfortunate background hue of Clegg's first reply. For some reason this made me laugh a lot.



Me too. Was great, that.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 17, 2010)

mumsnet is unashamedly tory. their owner is a sporadic guest of the 94.4FM (that's BBC London), during her guest appearances she carpet bombs the air waves with the stats of what she likes to refer to as 'mumsnet survey'. the 'survey' findings always sound like the tory party manifesto.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 17, 2010)

don't know how credible populus guys are. nevertheless, their findings won't please clegg



> *Leader who 'cares more for himself than public'*
> Times, The (London, England) - Thursday, September 16, 2010
> Author: Sam Coates
> 
> ...


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 18, 2010)

little_legs said:


> mumsnet is unashamedly tory. their owner is a sporadic guest of the 94.4FM (that's BBC London), during her guest appearances she carpet bombs the air waves with the stats of what she likes to refer to as 'mumsnet survey'. the 'survey' findings always sound like the tory party manifesto.



Kate Williams? She's no Tory.


----------



## TheHoodedClaw (Sep 18, 2010)

TheHoodedClaw said:


> Kate Williams? She's no Tory.


 
Tbh, I don't know who owns mumsnet. Point is that this a constituency that very heavily leaned LD, and they roasted Clegg. Mumsnet politics is a bit like mine - I hate bullies and like people.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 18, 2010)

i don't remember her name, but the lady has an irish accent. you are the first person albeit on the internet to inform me that they are a lib dem consitutuency. from listening to the woman with the irish accent, i wouldn't have come to that conclusion. but then again... i was told earlier on this forum that claire fox used to be a socialist, which is scary in itself.  

i would hope that the members & supporters of mumsnet are not siding with a particular politicial party, they are probably just on their own side, making sure their interests are looked after. and that's probably the reason why clegg got a deserved kicking. he can't simply assume that he owns them. 



> *I'm not a Tory, pleads Clegg*
> Times, The (London, England) - Friday, September 17, 2010
> Author: Sam Coates
> 
> ...


----------



## Roonster (Sep 18, 2010)

The lib-Dems have ceased to exist.. they are a dead parrot!


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2010)

IOS/ COMRES poll finds that 40% of lib-dem voters will now never vote lib-dem again.


----------



## the button (Sep 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> IOS/ COMRES poll finds that 40% of lib-dem voters will now never vote lib-dem again.


 
The flipside being that 60% are happy with the coalition. 40% of bewildered liberals wander off, leaving 60% of cuts-happy bastards.


----------



## the button (Sep 19, 2010)

Interesting to see David Milliband & Caroline Lucas vying to present their respective parties as the natural home of the 40%, too.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2010)

Would leave them with 13 seats though. They can have 100% of that if they want.


----------



## the button (Sep 19, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Would leave them with 13 seats though. They can have 100% of that if they want.



Can't see them getting many second choice votes from Labour supporters under the proposed AV system, either.  Would be nice to see the reform they've been whining about for years contributing to their electoral annihilation.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 19, 2010)

holding at 13%. the following is an excerpt of a long article 



> *SOLD OUT! To the man in the yellow tie - Whatever their activists gathering in Liverpool think, the Lib Dems' hopes are now tied to those of their Tory partners*
> Sunday Times, The (London, England) - Sunday, September 19, 2010
> Author: Isabel Oakeshott; Marie Woolf
> 
> ...



from the same piece



> If anyone suggests Clegg is sounding too like a Tory, MPs and peers are advised to reply: "In power the Liberal Democrats are delivering on our election promises - sticking true to our liberal ideals."


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2010)

Two days in and they're down to 11%. Only way is down.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2010)

11%?


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2010)

> If anyone suggests Clegg is sounding too like a Tory, MPs and peers are advised to reply: "In power the Liberal Democrats are delivering on our election promises - sticking true to our liberal ideals."


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2010)

It's true though.


----------



## frogwoman (Sep 21, 2010)

I know, that's the worst part!


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 21, 2010)

con 39% lab 39 % ldem 13%
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 21, 2010)

Labour leading soon.


----------



## _angel_ (Sep 22, 2010)

I can't really imagine why or how anyone would vote libdem again now. Anyone happy with what's happening may as well just vote tory. Most people I know voted libdem because they wanted to keep the tories _out_. Just what is the point in them existing?


----------



## ymu (Sep 22, 2010)

There isn't, any more. Even AV is unlikely to save them now, which would be a rather delicious irony.

Decent chance of the Greens becoming the new "third party" too. Their economic policies are pretty decent - if they manage not to dilute them on the way to third partydom.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 27, 2010)

just had a look at the sunday times, they only mention labour vs tory polling numbers as if the lib dems have fallen off the radar:



> Although a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times put Labour neck and neck with the Tories, on 38% to the Conservatives' 39%, some MPs fear the party could be in opposition for several terms.



the sundays times is the only paper i had a look at this weekend, and i don't think i've seen a broadsheet using so many pejoratives about the unions in a single issue. 

anyone's got the latest numbers on lib dems?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2010)

Give it till weds. Labour ahead


----------



## little_legs (Sep 27, 2010)

the rest of the sunday times appears to be an assualt on lib dems actually: 

this is from _Clegg troubled by tax status of £1m donors_: 


> The Choudhries, whose company Alpha Healthcare runs care homes, had a turnover of £57m last year and paid £165,024 in UK tax. Its parent company is based in the British Virgin Islands In the run-up to the general election they were the Liberal Democrats' second highest donors, giving the party £205,000 between March and April this year. Only the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust donated more.



and then in _Own up, Danny - you're a dodger too_: 


> There are times when the hypocrisy of a political party goes beyond the merely irritating and attains a level of shamelessness to which incredulous laughter is the only response. This is how we should react to the Liberal Democrats' big theme in the week of their party conference: that anyone who takes steps to limit their tax payments within the law is no different from someone who lives off fraudulently claimed benefits.
> 
> The Liberal Democrat chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, draws no distinction between those who illegally evade tax and those who employ accountants to minimise payments legally; he told his party faithful that "we will be ruthless with these often wealthy people", whom he described as being "like the benefit cheat ... morally indefensible".
> 
> This is the same Danny Alexander - I have checked; it really is - who designated his London apartment as his second home, for the purpose of claiming £37,000 of "parliamentary" expenses, but then described the same residence to HM Revenue and Customs as his main home, to avoid capital gains tax when he sold it. I'm genuinely interested to know how Mr Alexander thinks he has the moral authority to tell the rest of us that we are no better than crooks if we employ an accountant to minimise our tax bills.



and then they go on and on about Philip Green, Baron Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay and Michael Brown (I need to read up on the latter 2)


----------



## ymu (Sep 27, 2010)

Perhaps there should be a rule limiting donations to a political party to a certain percentage of tax paid in the UK. With the percentage being considerably lower than 125%, of course. That is appalling.


----------



## temper_tantrum (Sep 27, 2010)

ymu said:


> Decent chance of the Greens becoming the new "third party" too. Their economic policies are pretty decent - if they manage not to dilute them on the way to third partydom.


 
Technically the DUP would be the 3rd-largest party (by number of Commons seats) 
Or, if we're talking share of the popular vote, UKIP is sadly far bigger than the Greens I think?


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2010)

Labour in lead 

39/40/12


----------



## Santino (Sep 27, 2010)

lol


----------



## where to (Sep 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Labour in lead
> 
> 39/40/12


 
astonishing, considering the cuts haven't even been felt yet.

although i expect them to dip a little after tory conference/ ed-baiting, before rising again post-October.


----------



## little_legs (Sep 28, 2010)

From _The Times_, 28/09: 



> Last night, however, a poll for The Sun found Labour to be more popular than the Tories for the first time in three years. The YouGov survey of 1,948 adults put Labour on 40 per cent, the Conservatives on 39 per cent and the Liberal Democrats on 12 per cent.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 28, 2010)

the button said:


> Can't see them getting many second choice votes from Labour supporters under the proposed AV system, either.



I'll bite. Surely 'Keep the Tory out' voters in England are going to put them as second choice? For whom else would they vote? Surely not BNP or UKIP? Scottish and Welsh voters have SNP and PC, of course.

This is one area where my preferred choice of system, Approval Voting, shines. Voters can tick as many boxes as they like as there is no ordering.


----------



## ymu (Sep 28, 2010)

Quartz said:


> I'll bite. Surely 'Keep the Tory out' voters in England are going to put them as second choice? For whom else would they vote? Surely not BNP or UKIP? Scottish and Welsh voters have SNP and PC, of course.
> 
> This is one area where my preferred choice of system, Approval Voting, shines. Voters can tick as many boxes as they like as there is no ordering.


 
Tory out voters will vote Green/Socialist Alliance/actual left and put Labour second.


----------



## Quartz (Sep 29, 2010)

Fair enough.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 30, 2010)

con 35% lab 37% ldem18%

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2010)

Sunday Times /YG



> YouGov’s _weekly_ poll for the Sunday Times has topline figures of CON 39%, LAB 41%, LDEM 11%



My italics - this is diff from the daily tracker.


----------



## Sesquipedalian (Oct 3, 2010)

the button said:


> As noted on the 8 May p), it was a case of coalition at all costs for the LibDems. This YouGov poll for The Sunday Times has: -
> 
> Tories: 40% (up 4% from election result)
> Labour: 32% (up 3% from election result)
> ...


 
Is this Thread redundant ?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 3, 2010)

I repeat, just to get beyond this pathetic attention grabber who'll be gone by the timke i get home tmw



butchersapron said:


> Sunday Times /YG
> 
> 
> 
> My italics - this is diff from the daily tracker.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 3, 2010)

yesterday, the times was entirely dedicted to a single message, which in a sentence can be described as: if EM's partner is afraid to commit to him, how can you? the message was rolled out by 2 of its journalists, matthew parris and hugo rifkind. both sounded bitter and derogatory. 

today, the times is refusing to publish the yougov poll figures, it's front page piece *Millions lose out as child benefit cut* simply puts it:  



> A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times today puts Labour two points ahead of the Tories.



the highlights from the same piece: 



> The proposed child benefit cuts are central to Iain Duncan Smith's deal with the Treasury. Osborne's officials demanded upfront savings from the work and pensions secretary in return for agreeing to back his radical shake-up of the welfare system.
> 
> His welfare reforms are expected to cost at least £3 billion to implement, but are designed radically to reduce the £194 billion-a-year welfare bill in the medium to long term. Under the plans, Britain's 5.5m people on out-of-work benefits would:
> 
> ...





> In an American "workfare" style system, private companies would be paid to "do whatever it takes" to make individuals employable and find them posts. As well as skills training, this could involve teaching them how to dress smartly, sending staff to force them out of bed in the morning and offering them counselling or confidenceboosting sessions.
> 
> In theory, the current welfare system already contains an element of "conditionality" through benefit withdrawal from those who persistently refuse to work. In practice, the government claims this is almost impossible to enforce, when individuals can justifiably claim they are financially better off out of work.
> 
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 4, 2010)

little_legs said:


> today, the times is refusing to publish the yougov poll figures , <snip>:



The Express did this yesterday as well, simply saying their poll:



> “showed Labour taking a three-point lead over the Conservatives, with Lib Dems drifting in huge numbers to Ed Miliband’s party”



the figures were 35/38/16 - and that's from Angus Reid who traditionally have labour lower than reality.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 4, 2010)

Uk polling have labour and tory kneck to kneck in the polling average ,and labour two off a majority.I don't if the tories will get a bounce this week when all they will talk about that people will be watching is cuts


----------



## little_legs (Oct 10, 2010)

some gloating language in sunday times about the tories. anyway, here is the quote with the latest poll numbers from the ST:



> The furore over child benefit last week does not appear to have damaged the Conservatives' overall popularity. The party is four points ahead of Labour on 42%, reversing a temporary poll lead for Ed Miliband last week. The Liberal Democrats are still languishing on 12%.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Sunday times today
41/39/11



> Voting intention is pretty typical of late, but some of the findings are more negative for the government. Both David Cameron and Nick Clegg’s approval ratings are down, David Cameron’s is plus 11, but Nick Clegg is minus 6, the first time he has registered a negative approval score since the general election





> On the CSR, 29% think the government have the balance between cuts and taxes right, 29% would rather have higher taxes, 15% would rather have even larger cuts. 35% think the speed of cuts is about right, 43% think it is too fast and 8% too slow. 58% think they themselves will be affected by the cuts



It's coming.


----------



## trevhagl (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sunday times today
> 41/39/11
> 
> 
> ...


 
lets hope the 35% that think the speed of cuts is right are the ones who lose their jobs. Cunts


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Sunday times today
> 41/39/11
> 
> 
> ...


 
-6 lol


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Even  Andrew Rawnsley is calling for the lib-dems to be necklaced.

Wake up and smell the burning rubber, Mr Cable and Mr Clegg


----------



## where to (Oct 17, 2010)

Huhne and Clegg in trouble in their constituencies:
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2834

I wonder why Ashcroft has had these polls carried out now, and why he had allowed the findings to be released (or is that law?).


----------



## killer b (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Even  Andrew Rawnsley is calling for the lib-dems to be necklaced.


----------



## stethoscope (Oct 17, 2010)

where to said:


> Huhne and Clegg in trouble in their constituencies:
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2834
> 
> I wonder why Ashcroft has had these polls carried out now, and why he had allowed the findings to be released (or is that law?).


 


> Moving onto Sheffield Hallam, this is currently a pretty safe Lib Dem seat for Nick Clegg, with the Conservatives currently in a distant second place. The topline figures for general voting intention in the Populus poll are LDEM 33%(-20), LAB 31%(+15), CON 28%(+4): an even bigger collapse from the Lib Dems to Labour, but as Labour start off in third place Nick Clegg narrowly holds on.



-20


----------



## where to (Oct 17, 2010)

stephj said:


> LDEM 33%(-20), LAB 31%(+15), CON 28%(+4)


 
not a traditional Labour seat by any means, either:







http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheffield_Hallam_(UK_Parliament_constituency)


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2010)

Only one man can save the Lib Dems now.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

Sorry. i'm busy, having a drink with CK


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2010)

Im bored and stuck in the past, and my photoshop skills are not good. Never mind.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 17, 2010)

elbows said:


> View attachment 12110
> 
> Im bored and stuck in the past, and my photoshop skills are not good. Never mind.


 
No it's pretty good


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 17, 2010)

elbows said:


> View attachment 12110
> 
> Im bored and stuck in the past, and my photoshop skills are not good. Never mind.


 
I like it. The war is progressing perfectly.


----------



## Santino (Oct 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I like it. The war is progressing perfectly.


 
Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.


----------



## ymu (Oct 17, 2010)

elbows said:


> View attachment 12110
> 
> Im bored and stuck in the past, and my photoshop skills are not good. Never mind.


 
A useful logo for anyone interested. Thank you to frogwoman for posting it on another thread.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 17, 2010)




----------



## little_legs (Oct 18, 2010)

the ST did not publish the polling figures butchersapron posted earlier, they had no party polling numbers period. their main pieces have covered the cuts extensively but mainly to say that the cuts will _solve Britain's financial crisis_. 

dominic lawson's op ed *Relax - these cuts are just a scratch* said 'cameron has been useless in expalining that, in nominal terms, spending is not being cut' and called ed balls a 'vulgar keynesian'. 

the other op ed said that boris johnson has won the battle of the bus fare rises for the londoners, i.e. the bus fares will go up everywhere but london. so that's bojo's mayoral election jitter taken care of. 

the times continues to take the piss out of nick clegg: 





> Members of the National Liberal Club are wondering when the committee will commission a portrait of Nick Clegg , on the grounds that he's the most successful Liberal politician since Lloyd George. But is there room? Wall space at the London club is at such a premium that WE Gladstone stares down from the wall of an upstairs gents' lavatory.



a man from southwark council came on sat chasing oustanding voter registration forms. he said he's never seen a surge in voter registration he had seen in the past few weeks. i hope it's a good sign.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 18, 2010)

it ain't for.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 18, 2010)

you mean not a good sign for lib dems? i think the man was trying to say that simon hughes is dead meat. he just can't say that outloud.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 21, 2010)

Tonight:

CON 41%, LAB 40%, LD 10%

Even 18% is a long long way away today...


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tonight:
> 
> CON 41%, LAB 40%, LD 10%
> 
> Even 18% is a long long way away today...


 
anyone for single figuers


----------



## Sgt Howie (Oct 21, 2010)

That's about twice what they'll be on after April.


----------



## treelover (Oct 21, 2010)

surely they can't continue to govern if the poll ratings go down any further? they will have no legitimacy.


----------



## ymu (Oct 21, 2010)

treelover said:


> surely they can't continue to govern if the poll ratings go down any further? they will have no legitimacy.


 
There's no constitutional requirement for them to do anything without a vote of no confidence, and that can't happen whilst they're still desperately clinging onto power. Nick Clegg's seat has gone from safe Lib Dem with Labour third to three-way marginal with Labour second, and most of the Lib Dem MPs are seeing similar changes in their local polls. The only way it will happen is massive public pressure for a new election in which the Tories seek a mandate for their policies and the Lib Dems try to persuade us that they sincerely agree with whoever ends up with the most seats.

That will have to be massive public pressure because they know fine well they do not have that mandate and that there is no electoral majority which will hand it to them if asked.


----------



## where to (Oct 21, 2010)

treelover said:


> surely they can't continue to govern if the poll ratings go down any further? they will have no legitimacy.


 
the coalition would argue these polls show 51% support.

(hopefully they soon won't be able to)


----------



## little_legs (Oct 22, 2010)

they are here to stay. this man was cruising from one news network to another defending the cuts on the green by the parliament on wed afternoon and there was just one protester there. i was shocked...


----------



## ymu (Oct 22, 2010)

Odd snippet from Michael White in the Graun today:



> More paranoid than ministers in their coalition limos, the right also looks askance at the fixed term parliaments bill, now in the Lords. Once it is passed – and a five-year parliament is entrenched unless two-thirds of MPs vote for an election – the Lib Dems would be free to bolt from the coalition and shore up a Labour minority government in the runup to polling day. Their price? Easy. No to Trident renewal. Nick Clegg deplores such speculation as unreasonable cynicism. But the Osborne gamble on the recovery, itself unreasonable and cynical to many, opens the way to such hobgoblin calculations.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/21/michael-white-spending-review-electoral-reform



Is that right? That the fixed term parliaments bill does not preclude a change of government mid-term without an election?


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 22, 2010)

At the end of the day it,s down to votes a government that cannot command a majority in the house is fucked


----------



## ymu (Oct 22, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> At the end of the day it,s down to votes a government that cannot command a majority in the house is fucked


 
Well, yes. The question is, how does that government get replaced in the middle of a fixed-term parliament? Two-thirds of MPs are required to call an election early, but that article implies that there will be a mechanism to force a change of government without calling a new election, instead of them just limping on until the end of the term.

I shall do some googling.

<time passes>

OK, it's all a bit of a mess, but this article makes it reasonably clear.



> The government has already changed the bill to clarify the procedure when the Commons passes a motion of no confidence so it is clear parliament must be dissolved if no new government can be formed 14 days after the motion is passed.
> 
> Previously, the bill simply said a fixed-term parliament could only be brought to by a two-thirds majority of MPs.



What it will end up as is anyone's guess - looks like another piss poor bit of policy-making, judging from the rest of that article.


Political and Constitutional Reform Committee's take on it


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 22, 2010)

I see your points but the tories could end up as a government in name only if they lose the majority they will not be able to pass their political programme.the country will be in a constitusnal mess


----------



## ymu (Oct 22, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> I see your points but the tories could end up as a government in name only if they lose the majority they will not be able to pass their political programme.the country will be in a constitusnal mess


 
I am making no point, I was asking a question as this is the first I had heard of a mechanism to change the government in the event of a vote of no-confidence in the middle of a fixed term parliament.

The point you are making appears to have been taken on board in the amendments to the bill.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 22, 2010)

A taste of May 2011?

Here in Sheffield there was a by-election in the Manor Castle ward yesterday. It's a safe-as-houses Labour seat, and a fair distance (geographically and demograpically) from Clegg's Sheffield Hallam constituency, but Lib Dems polled a respectable 25.5% and 22.4% the last two times the ward was contested (in 2010 and 2008) - Last night they polled a little under 11%, and the Labour candidate was returned with 75% of the vote.

The make up of Sheffield City Council remains LD 41 cllrs, Lab 40 cllrs, Greens 3 cllrs.

Clearly Labour and the Greens could out the Leader, spouting something about needing a leader in the Town Hall who'll stick up for Sheffield against the axe, but they seem to be keeping their powder dry for next May.


----------



## editor (Oct 22, 2010)

*thread title updated to reflect the useless Lib Dems deeper slide into oblivion.







http://today.yougov.co.uk/politics/govt-trackers-update-21st-oct


----------



## moon23 (Oct 22, 2010)

editor said:


> *thread title updated to reflect the useless Lib Dems deeper slide into oblivion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
You mean cherry picking the lowest poll you can find and updating the thread to represent it.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 22, 2010)

No, he means the latest YG tracker - YG being the only people doing a daily tracker. I'm sure if the tracker is saying something different in 5 months time (6% maybe) then i'm sure the thread title will once again be updated to reflect that. 

And don't start getting ratty because you can feel the peoples anger at your back. 34% to 10% in 6 months. Astonishing.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Oct 22, 2010)

moon23 said:


> You mean cherry picking the lowest poll you can find and updating the thread to represent it.


 
Perhaps you'd rather talk about Clegg's attack on the IFS following his previous praise for them; give me some of that new principled politics.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## past caring (Oct 22, 2010)

ymu said:


> Odd snippet from Michael White in the Graun today:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that right? That the fixed term parliaments bill does not preclude a change of government mid-term without an election?



It is, in that respect, no different to the situation we're in at present.


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 22, 2010)

Nick Clegg would do well to remember the lesson of John Simon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Simon,_1st_Viscount_Simon


----------



## ymu (Oct 22, 2010)

past caring said:


> It is, in that respect, no different to the situation we're in at present.


 
It does seem that the bill is repeatedly back-tracking to include aspects which are more or less the status quo. They'll probably drop the fixed term parliament bit soon.


----------



## past caring (Oct 22, 2010)

I'll try to dig out a link, but I think I said something similar at the time of the initial policy announcement; there'd be no way they could get rid of a dissolution of parliament on the loss of vote of confidence (requiring only a simple majority of votes cast) - the fixed-term thing requiring a 2/3rds majority of MPs in the house for an early dissolution (i.e. where's there's been no loss of a confidence vote) was only ever - and only ever intended to be - a Tory sop to the Whigs, a guarantee that they wouldn't call a GE the moment polls looked favourable and hang Clegg and co. out to dry in the process.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 22, 2010)

treelover said:


> surely they can't continue to govern if the poll ratings go down any further? they will have no legitimacy.


Thatcher regularly had dismal midtermpoll ratings, barged on, and went on to win two more terms


----------



## co-op (Oct 22, 2010)

Ouch.

Tower Hamlets mayoral election last night - most of the publicity seems to have gone to the split in the Labour Party there but look at that Lib-Dem vote - a paltry 2,800, just a few ahead of the Greens, about 5.6%. To put that in context they got a healthy 18.8% in exactly the same borough with exactly the same electorate back in May.

I'd be reluctant to compare the two elections for a number of reasons but all the same that is a _collapse _- less than one third of what they polled just 5 months ago. When a vote goes south like that, the message is coming through loud and clear.

And this is not a borough where they are historically weak - the SDP <spits> and the Lib-Dems <spits again> held the council between 1986 and 1994.

Ouch.


----------



## treelover (Oct 22, 2010)

'Tower Hamlets mayoral election last night' 


Anyone starting a thread about that?, alleged IFE supporter now in control of 1 Billion pound budget


----------



## killer b (Oct 22, 2010)

the tories did badly too - has their share dropped?


----------



## co-op (Oct 22, 2010)

killer b said:


> the tories did badly too - has their share dropped?


 
Yes - it halved (as a percentage), one of the reasons I'd be a little dubious about comparing this with May is that in a first-past-the-post one-off where only the Labour candidate(s) have a chance the other parties' voters will be a little apathetic. But then again the Labour split should have at least opened the possibility that someone else would sneak in, thus motivating voters.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 22, 2010)

co-op said:


> But then again the Labour split should have at least opened the possibility that someone else would sneak in, thus motivating voters.


nope - didn't happen. Tory candidate miles behind in 3rd, lib dem limped home 500 votes ahead of the Greens' one


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 22, 2010)

treelover said:


> 'alleged IFE supporter now in control of 1 Billion pound budget


as he's consistently denied membership, can you substantiate this


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 24, 2010)

I'm sorry for the daily mail link but is is a mail poll

con35 lab37 ldem 10

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-majority-voters-support-Camerons-cuts.html


----------



## ymu (Oct 25, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> I'm sorry for the daily mail link but is is a mail poll
> 
> con35 lab37 ldem 10
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ls-majority-voters-support-Camerons-cuts.html


So that's 'other' on 18%, beating the Lib Dems by 8%.


----------



## ymu (Oct 25, 2010)

There's a lot of abstention/NOTAs hidden in these results. Not many of these percentages add up to even 90% and some a lot less.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> No, he means the latest YG tracker - YG being the only people doing a daily tracker. I'm sure if the tracker is saying something different in 5 months time (6% maybe) then i'm sure the thread title will once again be updated to reflect that.
> 
> And don't start getting ratty because you can feel the peoples anger at your back. 34% to 10% in 6 months. Astonishing.


 
The thread has cherry picked the lowest tracker store to date. YG's polling is rubbish, 34% was ludicrously high and 10% is too low. 16% is the latest ICM poll which is still a drop to be concerned about.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2010)

Bpix also have the lib-dems on 10%. Comres have you on 14%. Why cherry pick the highest? The pol in the OP was the YG tracker, as is the now repeated 10% figure. Seems consistent to stick with YG doesn't it? You _can't _ cherry pick the current figure btw - it just is. It's the current figure.

Tell us why the YG figure is a joke. What's your criticism of their methodology?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Bpix also have the lib-dems on 10%. Comres have you on 14%. Why cherry pick the highest? The pol in the OP was the YG tracker, as is the now repeated 10% figure. Seems consistent to stick with YG doesn't it? You _can't _ cherry pick the current figure btw - it just is. It's the current figure.
> 
> Tell us why the YG figure is a joke. What's your criticism of their methodology?



It's limited to people with computers and they apply their own disclosed formula to the statistics for weighting purposes - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ele...ollster-gives-Labour-an-unfair-advantage.html

They consistently show Lib Dem support as being lower than any of their competitors.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's limited to people with computers.



No, it's restricted to people with access to computers - at one time this was a legitimate criticism, but now, with libraries, and internet cafes and workplaces, and day centres all offering internet access, it is not valid.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's limited to people with computers and they apply their own disclosed formula to the statistics for weighting purposes - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ele...ollster-gives-Labour-an-unfair-advantage.html
> 
> They consistently show Lib Dem support as being lower than any of their competitors.



No it's not! You don't think them opt-in joke polls are what they base their tracker on do you 

And no, the current YG weighting is due precisely to YG giving the lib-dems _higher results_ than the reality was - the current highest ones are from ICM who also similarly overestimated the lib-dems prior to the election but have not chnaged their methodology since. That even they say you're fucked means you probably are fucked.

That link has nothing to do with the posts here - it's about labour and it's about a now discarded set of weightings and other criteria.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 25, 2010)

Here is an interesting article essentially saying that where the party is currently in the polls is nothing that new despite how some who want to see the Lib Dems do badly may latch onto the lowest poll rating they can find. 

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/liberal-democrats-vote-party


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2010)

What's the difference between those previous low ratings and now? Have a think about it.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 25, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No, it's restricted to people with access to computers - at one time this was a legitimate criticism, but now, with libraries, and internet cafes and workplaces, and day centres all offering internet access, it is not valid.


 
Ok so you think there is no problem with access to computers for the poor or ethnic minorities. Maybe you are right and this is no longer problem, which is a good thing.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 25, 2010)

Lib Dems had a by-election win in the Mole Valley from Conservative, my prediction will be losses against Labour and gains against the Conservatives for next May. It won't be the totatl election wipe-out some like Butchersapron would like it to be.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Here is an interesting article essentially saying that where the party is currently in the polls is nothing that new despite how some who want to see the Lib Dems do badly may latch onto the lowest poll rating they can find.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/10/liberal-democrats-vote-party


the writer really _has_ missed the point there!


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Lib Dems had a by-election win in the Mole Valley from Conservative, my prediction will be losses against Labour and gains against the Conservatives for next May. It won't be the totatl election wipe-out some like Butchersapron would like it to be.


 
Er, your vote collapsed in the urban areas at the same time - Swansea, Oxford, St Helens, Sheffield - did you miss that?


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Oct 25, 2010)

They say you only poll 10% with YouGov twice. Once on the way up, once on the way down.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Lib Dems had a by-election win in the Mole Valley from Conservative, my prediction will be losses against Labour and gains against the Conservatives for next May. It won't be the totatl election wipe-out some like Butchersapron would like it to be.


 why on earth would tory voters in their heartlands switch to LD, when there's practically no difference between the 2 parties now, and they might as well vote for the real McCoy? And given that your spiel of 'we're the only way you can turf the tory out' is now toast, why would anyone else in those seats vote for you?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 25, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Er, your vote collapsed in the urban areas at the same time - Swansea, Oxford, St Helens, Sheffield - did you miss that?



Nope I just said I predict there will be losses against Labour, so this is consistent with votes falling in urban areas. Labour are targeting Lib Dem votes at the moment, although it won’t be enough to win an election as they also need to win back those people who voted Conservative at the last election. 

I suspect a few years of pain whilst the CSR is going through then an upturn with the economy increasing.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 25, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> why on earth would tory voters in their heartlands switch to LD, when there's practically no difference between the 2 parties now, and they might as well vote for the real McCoy? And given that your spiel of 'we're the only way you can turf the tory out' is now toast, why would anyone else in those seats vote for you?


 
There are many reasons to vote LD locally, you only have to look at the polices the Lib Dems are putting through in the coaltition to see there is a distinctive difference between the parties.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are many reasons to vote LD locally, you only have to look at the polices the Lib Dems are putting through in the coaltition to see there is a distinctive difference between the parties.


 
oh do fuck off.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 25, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> oh do fuck off.


 
There are a range of issues from Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Pupil Premium to electoral reform that shows having LDs in the coalition is better than a Conservative government.


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are a range of issues from Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Pupil Premium to electoral reform that shows having LDs in the coalition is better than a Conservative government.


eh? there is agreement between the government and the labour party on the subject of eg capital gains tax. you're spouting bollocks again.


----------



## Nylock (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> there are many reasons to vote ld locally, you only have to look at the polices the lib dems are putting through in the coaltition to see there is a distinctive difference between the parties.


 
*rofl*


----------



## belboid (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are many reasons to vote LD locally, you only have to look at the polices the Lib Dems are putting through in the coaltition to see there is a distinctive difference between the parties.


 
none you can actually thionk of tho.  God, you're doing an abysmal job of dfending the indfensible.


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2010)

FFS.  I voted LD, I think that's on record so there's no point denying it..

That was naive.  But to carry on defending the fuckers now is just... I dunno.  Stupid? That doesn't seem strong enough somehow.  By a loooong way.

The party is dead.  They had a lot of support from 'natural' Labour voters who were pissed off about Iraq etc.  That was the source of their 'emergence'.  Those voters will never touch them again, not even with a shitty stick.  The Lib Dems are fucked, they are irrelevant.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Oct 25, 2010)

Corax said:


> FFS.  I voted LD, I think that's on record so there's no point denying it..
> 
> That was naive.  But to carry on defending the fuckers now is just... I dunno.  Stupid? That doesn't seem strong enough somehow.  By a loooong way.
> 
> The party is dead.  They had a lot of support from 'natural' Labour voters who were pissed off about Iraq etc.  That was the source of their 'emergence'.  Those voters will never touch them again, not even with a shitty stick.  The Lib Dems are fucked, they are irrelevant.


 
Fair play to anyone who voted LD for these reasons and now takes this line.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 25, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are many reasons to vote LD locally, you only have to look at the polices the Lib Dems are putting through in the coaltition to see there is a distinctive difference between the parties.


Not taht old 'it would be far worse without us' bollocks!
yes, but whatever you mean in one locality, nationally you're putting through  a raft of policies which reek of thatcherism, I mean one can barely get a fag paper between you and the tories - so why not vote for the real thing?


----------



## where to (Oct 25, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Fair play to anyone who voted LD for these reasons and now takes this line.


 
yup.


----------



## Corax (Oct 25, 2010)

Yay me.


----------



## Santino (Oct 25, 2010)

Does moon23 really think that YouGov just ask people to fill in online questionnaires and not, you know, weigh them against demographic data and adapt their model against previous results?


----------



## moon23 (Oct 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Not taht old 'it would be far worse without us' bollocks!
> yes, but whatever you mean in one locality, nationally you're putting through  a raft of policies which reek of thatcherism, I mean one can barely get a fag paper between you and the tories - so why not vote for the real thing?


 
Sorry this is bollocks there are lot's of the best polices to emerge from the Coalition that are only there becuase of the Lib Dems. Delay of trident, pupil premium, AV vote, increase of minimal tax bracket, increase in CGT, retaining inheritance tax.

People should be proud they voted for these polices and are seeing them enacted.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 26, 2010)

Santino said:


> Does moon23 really think that YouGov just ask people to fill in online questionnaires and not, you know, weigh them against demographic data and adapt their model against previous results?


 
No I don't so don't paint some shitty straw man that suggests I do, I’ve already posted up an article where polling experts and academics take issue with some of their algorithms so it’s obvious I know they apply things to weigh them. 

Next time try actually reading the thread.


----------



## where to (Oct 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There are a range of issues from Capital Gains Tax, Inheritance Tax, Pupil Premium to electoral reform that shows having LDs in the coalition is better than a Conservative government.


 
without the Lib Dems there would be no Conservative government.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 26, 2010)

where to said:


> without the Lib Dems there would be no Conservative government.


 
The reason there is a Conservative  led government is becuase they won the most MPs. The electorate decided.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 26, 2010)

I'd rather things like the pupil premuim were being enacted than not, again evidence the Lib Dems are rounding the worse edges off the Tories- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/24/pupil-premium-promise-delivered


----------



## where to (Oct 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The reason there is a Conservative  led government is becuase they won the most MPs. The electorate decided.


 
no.  the Lib Dems let them govern.


----------



## Santino (Oct 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd rather things like the pupil premuim were being enacted than not, again evidence the Lib Dems are rounding the worse edges off the Tories- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/24/pupil-premium-promise-delivered


 
What was the pupil premium pledge? More money for schools?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd rather things like the pupil premuim were being enacted than not, again evidence the Lib Dems are rounding the worse edges off the Tories- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/24/pupil-premium-promise-delivered


 
But moon the lib dems allowd them into government.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2010)

where to said:


> without the Lib Dems there would be no Conservative government.


 
Yep, and they are never going to be forgiven for this. They are crapping themselves now they've realised what they've done.

Cant wait until polling day. They're toast.


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2010)

They arent rounding off the worst excesses of the Tories, indeed Clegg & Co are both providing cover and helpfully taking heat away from Cameron, Osborne, IDS & Gove. 

At best, in terms of policy, they are offering a few consolation prizes, but these arent enough to make up for the horror they are enabling by supporting the Tory regime. Even if we remove any unjust criticism they are getting as a result of some Lib Dems voters expectations being set far too high, or completely misunderstanding what Lib Dems actually stand for, its still a tall order to see them in a positive light.

It was clear well before the election that the winners would get a poisoned chalice. That the Tories and Lib Dems chose to face this by drinking heartily and greedily from it is not going to help matters.


----------



## Santino (Oct 26, 2010)

libdems.org said:
			
		

> To give every child a fair start, Liberal Democrats will spend an extra £2.5bn on schools.






			
				The Guardian said:
			
		

> The education secretary, Michael Gove, has admitted that he has had to make cuts to his own budget in order to fund the coalition's flagship £2.5bn policy of a "pupil premium" despite claims from the prime minister and others that the money would come from outside the education budget.



Promised fulfilled!


For a given definition of fulfilled!


----------



## Nylock (Oct 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> People should be proud they voted for these polices and are seeing them enacted.



In the main, those that voted for them (the LD's, that is) feel betrayed or at the least, horribly let down ... A lot of the lib dem 'compromises' will not be forgotten come election day...


----------



## wreckhead (Oct 26, 2010)

Belushi said:


> Yep, and they are never going to be forgiven for this. They are crapping themselves now they've realised what they've done.
> 
> Cant wait until polling day. They're toast.


This.  I'm willing to admit I voted for them at the last election, and I felt dirty doing so.  I don't think I would have felt so bad if I were in a Tory safe seat as opposed to a Labour one, but thankfully for my conscience my vote ended up meaning nothing.  I naively wanted to see a political system other than the status quo, giving minority voices more power, and hoping for the result to be a Conservative government neutered by libdems, preferably as a minority government.  Instead we get this "marvellous coalition" empowering Osbourne and his ilk to shit all over everyone whilst blaming Labour and shielding behind the libdems.  What a shower of shits the lot of them..


----------



## Sgt Howie (Oct 26, 2010)

elbows said:


> They arent rounding off the worst excesses of the Tories, indeed Clegg & Co are both providing cover and helpfully taking heat away from Cameron, Osborne, IDS & Gove.


 
It goes beyond that, in fiscal terms they're the hard right of the coalition. If anything it's been the likes of Fox and IDS who've been arguing in cabinet for reduced cuts against the opposition of Clegg, Huhne, Alexander etc.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 26, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> It goes beyond that, in fiscal terms they're the hard right of the coalition. If anything it's been the likes of Fox and IDS who've been arguing in cabinet for reduced cuts against the opposition of Clegg, Huhne, Alexander etc.



This is the key, the Libdems are bolstering the hard Cameronite-Osbornist neo-liberal wing against the slightly more paternalistic christian democratic wing of the Tory party.


----------



## Goatherd (Oct 26, 2010)

I voted Lib Dem. Never thought I'd feel worse about it than my dad did over the one time he voted Tory. Never, ever again.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No I don't so don't paint some shitty straw man that suggests I do, I’ve already posted up an article where polling experts and academics take issue with some of their algorithms so it’s obvious I know they apply things to weigh them.
> 
> Next time try actually reading the thread.



No you didn't, you did no such thing - as i immediately pointed out to to you. You gave a link to a crude criticism of a methodology that yougov have now altered precisely because it was returning falsely high polling results for the lib-dems. And, as i also pointed out, that article is not about the lib-dems are mentioned once and in passing, nothing to do with the substantive content of the article. It seems likely to me from your first post and the subsequent transparently desperate googling that you did in fact believe the opt-in yogov joke stuff. ther stuff where you go to their site and fill in questionnaires for a a few pence forms the basis for their polling.

Next time try reading both the thread and your crap links.


----------



## elbows (Oct 26, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> It goes beyond that, in fiscal terms they're the hard right of the coalition. If anything it's been the likes of Fox and IDS who've been arguing in cabinet for reduced cuts against the opposition of Clegg, Huhne, Alexander etc.


 
Yeah you are probably right on that one, at least to a certain extent. Im not sure they are further to the fiscal right than Osborne though.


----------



## Fruitloop (Oct 26, 2010)

The zeal of the recently converted?


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 26, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'd rather things like the pupil premuim were being enacted than not, again evidence the Lib Dems are rounding the worse edges off the Tories- http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/24/pupil-premium-promise-delivered


oh what lies! Not a single extra penny has been given to the education budget to cover it - it simply robs (state pupil) Peter to pay (state pupil) Paul


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 26, 2010)

Goatherd said:


> I voted Lib Dem. Never thought I'd feel worse about it than my dad did over the one time he voted Tory. Never, ever again.


That's the honest type of LD voter I can respect. It's those who are STILL trying to big up the libs NOW, after all they've signed up to, that I have nothing but contempt for


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2010)

its ok to admit you made a mistake moon.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 26, 2010)

Fruitloop said:
			
		

> The zeal of the recently converted?



A lot in this to explain quite a lot!

Saying that though, how long have the Orange Book tendancy been free market fruitloops? Quite a bit longer than many are aware I suspect.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> A lot in this to explain quite a lot!
> 
> Saying that though, how long have the Orange Book tendancy been free market fruitloops? Quite a bit longer than many are aware I suspect.


 
if i remember rightly (this is purely off the top of my head based on half remembered A Level stuff so i might be talking utter shite) there are/were at least two "types" of lib dems, one of them was the economic liberals / basically extreme tories (and if you look at their record, they were actually WORSE than tories, the tories were marginally better - it was the tories who introduced the first "modifications" to an utterly free market system as advocated by the 19th Century liberals after it had led directly to deaths of all those people in the Irish Famine when people were left to starve partly because of ideological/financial reasons. then there were the "liberal reformers" of Lloyd George et al who introduced the beginings of the welfare state in the 1910s. there were always tensions between the two types of liberals, and im not too sure about the details because i normally am not particularly interested in that kind of thing but they were two parties at one stage right?? the liberals and the SDP who if i remember rightly were more of the economically liberal type of lib dem. recently, as in the last 20 years, the lib dems moved (or appeared to move) to the left and a lot of people thought they were the left of labour, and attracted a lot of centre left voters. but that element of free market fundamentalism, and also the opportunism that they developed as a political strategy (ie changing their views all the time) has never really gone away 

someone stop me if im talking bollocks, a lot of the historical stuff i mentioned i really ought to look at agiain at some point so it might be bollocks ...


----------



## Sgt Howie (Oct 26, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> A lot in this to explain quite a lot!
> 
> Saying that though, how long have the Orange Book tendancy been free market fruitloops? Quite a bit longer than many are aware I suspect.


 
Indeed. St Vince being one of them.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2010)

I remember a lib dem friendn of mine (whose since left) being utterly shocked after having obtained a copy of the  orange book and saying that they were basically all tories ...


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2010)

> of thing but they were two parties at one stage right?? the liberals and the SDP who if i remember rightly were more of the economically liberal type of lib dem.



They were a split from the right of the Labour Party. Fuckwits.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2010)

SDP

They polled very highly for a short while.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2010)

Belushi said:


> SDP
> 
> They polled very highly for a short while.


 
they split from the *right* of the labour party?


----------



## Belushi (Oct 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> they split from the *right* of the labour party?


 
Yes 

They then went on to spend most of the Eighties as part of the SDP-Liberal Alliance with two leaders (Davids Steel and Owen).


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2010)

ohhh ok   so, did they then become part of the lib dems? what are they all doing now?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2010)

Well Vince Cable and Chris Huhne are fronting the cuts.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Oct 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> they split from the *right* of the labour party?


 
On a pro-Common Market, anti-nationalisation, anti-union, pro-Atlanticist, pro-Trident platform.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Well Vince Cable and Chris Huhne are fronting the cuts.


 
they were in the SDP? sorry, i must sound so stupid, but i didnt actually know this.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> if i remember rightly (this is purely off the top of my head based on half remembered A Level stuff so i might be talking utter shite) there are/were at least two "types" of lib dems, one of them was the economic liberals / basically extreme tories (and if you look at their record, they were actually WORSE than tories, the tories were marginally better - it was the tories who introduced the first "modifications" to an utterly free market system as advocated by the 19th Century liberals after it had led directly to deaths of all those people in the Irish Famine when people were left to starve partly because of ideological/financial reasons. then there were the "liberal reformers" of Lloyd George et al who introduced the beginings of the welfare state in the 1910s. there were always tensions between the two types of liberals, and im not too sure about the details because i normally am not particularly interested in that kind of thing but they were two parties at one stage right?? the liberals and the SDP who if i remember rightly were more of the economically liberal type of lib dem. recently, as in the last 20 years, the lib dems moved (or appeared to move) to the left and a lot of people thought they were the left of labour, and attracted a lot of centre left voters. but that element of free market fundamentalism, and also the opportunism that they developed as a political strategy (ie changing their views all the time) has never really gone away
> 
> someone stop me if im talking bollocks, a lot of the historical stuff i mentioned i really ought to look at agiain at some point so it might be bollocks ...


This explains most of it; however, what's happened in the past five years or so is that the Orange Bookers have totally won ascendancy in the party over those Liberals who believed in combiniing civil libertarianism with social and economic justice


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> they were in the SDP? sorry, i must sound so stupid, but i didnt actually know this.



Yep. They were both in the labour party before that. Cable was high up influential labour councillor.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 26, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> ohhh ok   so, did they then become part of the lib dems? what are they all doing now?


Owen flounced out of mainstream UK politics, their party got swallowed up by the much bigger Liberal party, about 1/3 of the original SDPers crawled back to Labour when hey saw - to their delight - that Blair made Denis Healey look like a placard-waving trot, by comparison, and the rest have been dragging the libdems rightwards ever since


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 26, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. They were both in the labour party before that. Cable was high up influential labour councillor.


wasn't Huhne's major involvement with Labour of the stoodent politics variety?


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Owen flounced out of mainstream UK politics, their party got swallowed up by the much bigger Liberal party, about 1/3 of the original SDPers crawled back to Labour when hey saw - to their delight - that Blair made Denis Healey look like a placard-waving trot, by comparison, and the rest have been dragging the libdems rightwards ever since


 ...and a hell of a lot have also ended up on the tory frontbench/leading positions - Andrew Lansley, Chris Grayling, David Mundell, Greg Clark...


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> wasn't Huhne's major involvement with Labour of the stoodent politics variety?



Well, the highest powered student politics you can get - the exec of the Oxford University Labour Club...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> This explains most of it; however, what's happened in the past five years or so is that the Orange Bookers have totally won ascendancy in the party over those Liberals who believed in combiniing civil libertarianism with social and economic justice


 
yep  although the liberal party is still going, they got a few councillors near round my way


----------



## little_legs (Oct 27, 2010)

glover is complaining about the polls too: 



> A Times/Populus poll published today puts Labour in the lead for the first time in the series since November 2007 - with Labour on 38%, the Conservatives on 37% and the Lib Dems on 15%.
> 
> One clear difference between the latest ICM and Populus polls and some other surveys is in the level of Lib Dem support, which remains higher in ICM surveys than most others. The most recent online YouGov poll put the LibDems on only 10%, for instance.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/oct/26/voters-cuts-coalition-poll


----------



## Mr Blob (Oct 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yep  although the liberal party is still going, they got a few councillors near round my way


 
In Lewisham the libdems lost many councillors to Labour in May.   And since they joined the Tories many local members have deserted the libdems and joined Lewisham Labour


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yep  although the liberal party is still going, they got a few councillors near round my way



The rump Liberal Party actually do a appear to be a moderate centre left party to the left of Labour on most things. They were part of NO2EU at the euros with your lot.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 27, 2010)

yea i looked at their website, they seem quite sound on a lot of things!


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yep  although the liberal party is still going, they got a few councillors near round my way



I hear that splitter Michael Meadowcroft has been welcomed into the Lib Dems. What does this mean for the Liberals?


----------



## nino_savatte (Oct 27, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> This explains most of it; however, what's happened in the past five years or so is that the Orange Bookers have totally won ascendancy in the party over those Liberals who believed in combiniing civil libertarianism with social and economic justice



We can thank Emperor Ming for that. He welcomed them into his front bench team only to get knifed in the back by the same bunch he gave a leg up.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ...and a hell of a lot have also ended up on the tory frontbench/leading positions - Andrew Lansley, Chris Grayling, David Mundell, Greg Clark...


absolutely true. I was rush posting/multitasking, but I should have added that more than a few did a 'prentice flip', as it were, and found a new spiritual home inthe tories. Which, in retrospect, should surprise absolutely no-one


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Well, the highest powered student politics you can get - the exec of the Oxford University Labour Club...


yeah, that really IS as creme de la creme as it gets!
not so much the People's Party as the Top People's Party...


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

nino_savatte said:


> I hear that splitter Michael Meadowcroft has been welcomed into the Lib Dems. What does this mean for the Liberals?


more sexual hijinks, if the old boy's still up to it. He was famous for it back in the day...


----------



## moon23 (Oct 27, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yep  although the liberal party is still going, they got a few councillors near round my way



Steve Radford over in Liverpool is an amazing Liberal party Councillor. The relationship between social justice and liberalism is not a straight forward one. The orange book liberals are more philosophically consistent.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 27, 2010)

moon23 said:


> . The relationship between social justice and liberalism is not a straight forward one.


But straightforward enough for the old Liberal party to get the hang of easily enough, ditto the libdems up until 5 years ago


> The orange book liberals are more philosophically consistent


yup-consistently totally socially _unjust_. Theirs is a neo-liberal credo 100%, and issues of social equality, not to mention redistributionism were ditched years ago


----------



## elbows (Oct 27, 2010)

I think I need a short break from ranting about politics, last night a small part of a strange dream consisted of me seeing Vince Cable in a bar and getting in his face and shouting at him about various policies.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 27, 2010)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The rump Liberal Party actually do a appear to be a moderate centre left party to the left of Labour on most things. They were part of NO2EU at the euros with your lot.


 
Well, one Liberal councillor stood for No2EU, on the insistence of the CPB. I'm still not sure why.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Oct 27, 2010)

elbows said:


> I think I need a short break from ranting about politics, last night a small part of a strange dream consisted of me seeing Vince Cable in a bar and getting in his face and shouting at him about various policies.


 
He wouldn't have hung around long:



> The Business Secretary Vince Cable has pulled out of a planned visit to Oxford University where students were planning a protest.
> 
> He was due to take part in a seminar organised by Brasenose College.
> 
> ...



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11639542


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 27, 2010)

Lib-dems now into single figures in Scotland and Wales (both regional constituency elections).

Scotland:

Westminster: CON 18%, LAB 44%, *LDEM 7%*, SNP 26%
Holyrood constituency: CON 14%, LAB 40%, *LDEM 8%*, SNP 34%
Holyrood Regional: CON 15%, LAB 36%,* LDEM 8%*, SNP 31%, Green 6%

Wales

Constituency: CON 19%(-3), LAB 44%(nc), *LDEM 9%*(-2), PC 21%(+2)
Regional: CON 18%(-2), LAB 40%(-1), *LDEM 9%*(-3), PC 23%(+4)


----------



## where to (Oct 27, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems now into single figures in Scotland and Wales (both regional constituency elections).


 
the Greens will probably benefit in Scotland off the back of this.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems now into single figures in Scotland and Wales (both regional constituency elections).
> 
> Scotland:
> 
> ...


 
Now that doesn't look good at all


----------



## Goatherd (Oct 29, 2010)

Dave Cameron on the screen today
convinced the Liberals it's okay..


----------



## Pickman's model (Oct 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems now into single figures in Scotland and Wales (both regional constituency elections).
> 
> Scotland:
> 
> ...


 
haha


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dems now into single figures in Scotland and Wales (both regional constituency elections).
> 
> Scotland:
> 
> ...


 glorious news!
one slight problem - scotland link - "page not found"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

thats fucking awesome


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> glorious news!
> one slight problem - scotland link - "page not found"


 
Odd, you can find the figures at the bottom here


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

what are todays figures butchers?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 29, 2010)

Only five years in power and then jobs in the city for Clegg and his motley crue to look forward to. Poor saps.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> what are todays figures butchers?


 
CON 41%, LAB 39% LDEM 11%

Government approval - minus 1 (42% Approve, 43% Disapprove)


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2010)

goldenecitrone said:


> Only five years in power and then jobs in the city for Clegg and his motley crue to look forward to. Poor saps.


 
Five years?  That assumes the AV referendum passes


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> CON 41%, LAB 39% LDEM 11%
> 
> Government approval - minus 1 (42% Approve, 43% Disapprove)


 
heh, love it.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Oct 29, 2010)

belboid said:


> Five years?  That assumes the AV referendum passes


 
Even if they are only in power for a couple of years, I'm sure they'll make enough friends to keep them looked after for the rest of their lives.


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2010)

Someone will look after Clegg, alright.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2010)

belboid said:


> Five years?  That assumes the AV referendum passes


 
Gosh, are you not voting to yes to the construction of a pluralist-positive new left (that includes the lib-dems) to break the hegemony of auto-labourism? Are you some sort of tory? You tribalists make me sick.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 29, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> heh, love it.


 
Its only gonna get better as well


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Odd, you can find the figures at the bottom here


and so you can! ta for taking the trouble.
YIPPEE THEY'RE DYING ON THEIR ARSES!
#<tries to look mature and dignified>
<fails>


----------



## sihhi (Oct 29, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Gosh, are you not voting to yes to the construction of a pluralist-positive new left (that includes the lib-dems) to break the hegemony of auto-labourism? Are you some sort of tory? You tribalists make me sick.



Why would anyone want to block the rise of the Green Party, with a successful referendum people power can be positively applied since there are probably around a potential million Green voters who are afraid of voting as they wish because of the current electoral system which is biased towards the establishment parties. With a strong Green Party a powerful red-green alliance can be formed breaking the auto-Labourist grip on the Labour movement. The Labour tribalists won't like this, that's why only genuine Labour progressives like Stephen Twigg, Progress Magazine, Austin Mitchell and John Denham are in favour of it.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 29, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> and so you can! ta for taking the trouble.
> YIPPEE THEY'RE DYING ON THEIR ARSES!
> #<tries to look mature and dignified>
> <fails>



Even if the party takes a massive beating I think the coalition is better than a Conservative minority government, all that would have done is resulted in a bundle of populist polices such as lot's of tax cuts and a snap election returning a Tory majority (as both Labour & Lib Dems had empty war chests.)

I'm proud at the polices the party is being able to get in, they are polices people voted for.

The Lib Dems are a party of compromise, locally we have a coalition with Labour that managed to throw out a Tory controlled council so i'm pleased about that.


----------



## moon23 (Oct 29, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Why would anyone want to block the rise of the Green Party, with a successful referendum people power can be positively applied since there are probably around a potential million Green voters who are afraid of voting as they wish because of the current electoral system which is biased towards the establishment parties. With a strong Green Party a powerful red-green alliance can be formed breaking the auto-Labourist grip on the Labour movement. The Labour tribalists won't like this, that's why only genuine Labour progressives like Stephen Twigg, Progress Magazine, Austin Mitchell and John Denham are in favour of it.



Labour were for it before the election, it was in their manifesto. They are just now opportunistically seeing it as a way to punish the Lib Dems rather than looking at the bigger picture. 
They had 13 years in power to deliver voting reform and did fuck all. AV may be a compromise but at least it’s actually on the table.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Oct 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm proud at the polices the party is being able to get in, they are polices people voted for.


 
Lol. Didn't the Liberal vote go down? Policies people voted for?


----------



## sihhi (Oct 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Labour were for it before the election, it was in their manifesto. They are just now opportunistically seeing it as a way to punish the Lib Dems rather than looking at the bigger picture. They had 13 years in power to deliver voting reform and did fuck all. AV may be a compromise but at least it’s actually on the table.


 
Why are you a Lib Demmer pro-AV? With AV you will get screwed. Look at what happened to you in Australia.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Labour were for it before the election, it was in their manifesto. They are just now opportunistically seeing it as a way to punish the Lib Dems rather than looking at the bigger picture.
> They had 13 years in power to deliver voting reform and did fuck all. AV may be a compromise but at least it’s actually on the table.


 
They didn't say that they were for it - they said they'd hold a referendum. They didn't come out with a position. And Miliband has said he's for it. As well researched as ever.


----------



## Streathamite (Oct 29, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Even if the party takes a massive beating I think the coalition is better than a Conservative minority government, all that would have done is resulted in a bundle of populist polices such as lot's of tax cuts and a snap election returning a Tory majority (as both Labour & Lib Dems had empty war chests.)
> 
> I'm proud at the polices the party is being able to get in, they are polices people voted for.


THEy did NOT vote for the limp parody of AV on offer, they did NOT vote for the cuts outlined in the CSR, they did not vote for the stitchup over the pupil premium, they did not vote for the CGT cave in, and they did NOT vote for the limp capitulation to the Swiss. And - above all else - they did not vote for the poorest and most deprived 20% of the country to get royally fucked up the arse. You have NOT managed to rein in the Tories AT ALL, mainly becuase your party agrees with their neoliberal economics insanities. 
STOP LYING.


> The Lib Dems are a party of compromise,


damn right - there's not a principle you won't compromise, just to get a whiff of power!


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 29, 2010)

sihhi said:


> Why would anyone want to block the rise of the Green Party, with a successful referendum people power can be positively applied since there are probably around a potential million Green voters who are afraid of voting as they wish because of the current electoral system which is biased towards the establishment parties. With a strong Green Party a powerful red-green alliance can be formed breaking the auto-Labourist grip on the Labour movement. The Labour tribalists won't like this, that's why only genuine Labour progressives like Stephen Twigg, Progress Magazine, Austin Mitchell and John Denham are in favour of it.



Has articul8 stolen sihhi's password?


----------



## Sgt Howie (Oct 29, 2010)

The Lib Dems will stick with the coalition whether they win or lose the referendum. It won't make a blind bit of difference either way.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2010)

What failure will make the lib-dems do in the coalition is important.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Oct 29, 2010)

What will be far more important when the referendum results come in will be that the cuts will have started to bite and the Lib Dems will be at 5% in the polls.

I'm not calling for an AV vote or anything like that. But equally, losing the referendum will be the least of their worries by some distance come May.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 29, 2010)

I think it will be a killer blow for the minority still supporting them. Final proff that they can't deliver anything at all.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Oct 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I'm proud at the polices the party is being able to get in, they are polices people voted for.



O RLY? 




			
				Lib Dems grandstanding said:
			
		

> NO HARD AND FAST CUTS YOU TORY BASTARDS!






			
				Lib Dems in power said:
			
		

> WE WILL CUT YOUR BALLS OFF AND YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.






			
				Lib Dems grandstanding said:
			
		

> NO FEES, YOU TORY BASTARDS.






			
				Lib Dems in power said:
			
		

> WE ARE INCREASING FEES JUST AS WE PROMISED TO.



And so on and so forth and suchlike with every single "policy" in their "manifesto".


----------



## binka (Oct 31, 2010)

i don't believe those are real quotes refused


----------



## Refused as fuck (Oct 31, 2010)

Sadly, they actually are.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 1, 2010)

labour took over kentish town in camden from the lib dems last thursday: http://www3.camden.gov.uk/votes/?page_id=28


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 1, 2010)

little_legs said:


> labour took over kentish town in camden from the lib dems last thursday: http://www3.camden.gov.uk/votes/?page_id=28


 
Even on a reduced turnout that is a good result already posted this but this is a leaflet put out by labour


----------



## little_legs (Nov 1, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> Even on a reduced turnout that is a good result already posted this but this is a leaflet put out by labour





i hope sarah tether in the neighbouring brent central is shitting herself


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 1, 2010)

little_legs said:


> labour took over kentish town in camden from the lib dems last thursday: http://www3.camden.gov.uk/votes/?page_id=28


 
It was a Labour seat to begin with.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 1, 2010)

camden yes, but kentish town... you sure?


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 1, 2010)

If you follow the link it has the result from 6 May when Labour won all three seats. Their percentage share was well up the other day though.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 1, 2010)

yep, you are correct, n. russel was replaced by a labour councillor in this by-election.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 1, 2010)

But in may they only won by a small majority but this time they polled twice the libdem total


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 2, 2010)

Indy poll 
con35% lab37% libdem16%


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ave-tories-behind-labour-in-poll-2122618.html

the first sign that cuts are starting to hurt tories


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2010)

little_legs said:


> labour took over kentish town in camden from the lib dems last thursday: http://www3.camden.gov.uk/votes/?page_id=28


given that kentish Town is gentrifying, that's a shockingly bad result for the tories and the libdems


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2010)

little_legs said:


> i hope sarah tether in the neighbouring brent central is shitting herself


bound to be, it's demographics are much more naturally pro-Labour than KT's are


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2010)

what happens if there has to be a by election in sheffield and nick clegg loses his seat? Will he still have to carry on being the leader of the lib dems?


----------



## Santino (Nov 2, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> what happens if there has to be a by election in sheffield and nick clegg loses his seat? Will he still have to carry on being the leader of the lib dems?


 
The by-election would probably be caused by his death.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2010)

sorry, fuck, not really with it this morning, i thought so after i posted that!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2010)

Well yeah, he's either dead or gone to the chilterns in that situation. Preferably the former.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2010)

Interesting finding in the latest YG tables (pdf) - nearly a 1/4 of people who identify as lib-dem voters blame the coalition for the economic situation and 30% of lib-dem think they're being done 'unfairly' (That figures also maps quite nicely onto the LDs who aren't intending to vote for AV right now, only 70% for.).


----------



## co-op (Nov 2, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> If you follow the link it has the result from 6 May when Labour won all three seats. Their percentage share was well up the other day though.



And the Lib-Derm vote held up amazingly well it has to be said.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2010)

New welsh poll out for westiminster - i.e not the welsh regions and constituency votes - for proper london MPs -  lib-dems being destroyed:

CON 29%(+3), LAB 46%(+10), *LDEM 8%(-12)*, PC 11%(nc)


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 2, 2010)

8%!


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 2, 2010)

fucking hell, you'd expect the tories to collapse in wales a long way before the lib dems did


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 2, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> New welsh poll out for westiminster - i.e not the welsh regions and constituency votes - for proper london MPs -  lib-dems being destroyed:
> 
> CON 29%(+3), LAB 46%(+10), *LDEM 8%(-12)*, PC 11%(nc)



It would be plausible to conclude from that, that typical Libdem voters are peeling off back towards their natural parties, three quarters going back to Labour, and a quarter back to the Tories.


----------



## Voley (Nov 2, 2010)

8%!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2010)

The lesson to the lib-dem is clear: _get out of wales._


----------



## London_Calling (Nov 2, 2010)

Milliband E. presumably hasn't done any harm either.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 2, 2010)

Assembly elections should be interesting. Even with the electoral system, the liberals and the tories are going to get fucked off. Plaid seem to be a bit lost at the moment too. Labour will fucking clean up.

Cheerio Black and Williams...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 2, 2010)

Tonight we have

CON 41%, LAB 40%, LD 11%; APPROVAL -5

Lab hitting that 40% fairly regular now. Govt approval stabilised at negative.


----------



## lewislewis (Nov 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Assembly elections should be interesting. Even with the electoral system, the liberals and the tories are going to get fucked off. Plaid seem to be a bit lost at the moment too. Labour will fucking clean up.
> 
> Cheerio Black and Williams...


 
Plaid's vote will stay about the same- considering they're a junior coalition partner that's not a bad result, but they will probably lose a seat or two because in 2007 they got quite lucky on the regional lists. Labour are effectively deploying nationalist rhetoric at the moment and it is stunting Plaid's growth.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> New welsh poll out for westiminster - i.e not the welsh regions and constituency votes - for proper london MPs -  lib-dems being destroyed:
> 
> CON 29%(+3), LAB 46%(+10), *LDEM 8%(-12)*, PC 11%(nc)



Weyhey! Not seen that til now ...  

In somewhere like Swansea, where in the West seat in May the LDs came within a whisker of unseating Labour, they'd be *completely * wiped out if that poll is anywhere near true ...


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Assembly elections should be interesting. Even with the electoral system, the liberals and the tories are going to get fucked off. Plaid seem to be a bit lost at the moment too. Labour will fucking clean up.
> 
> Cheerio *Black* and Williams...



That's Peter Black in Swansea isn't it? He was also the Parliamentary candidate in Swansea West, see above. Locally all the current talk from the political types (OK leftie beeer drinkers too!) that I hang out with, is that he hasn't got any hope at all of retaining his Assembly seat.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2010)

moon23. earlier said:
			
		

> AV may be a compromise but at least it's actually on the table.



As is blatantly pro-Tory gerrymandering of constituency numbers and boundaries, without any chance of any local input. The boundary changes are bundled in with AV.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 3, 2010)

little_legs said:


> i hope sarah tether in the neighbouring brent central is shitting herself



I'm sure she is. I wrongly predicted Dawn Butler (ex Brent South MP) to win it back for Labour in May anyway --back then, the boundaries were already in Labour's favour and Butler had a positive local profile, most of Teather's redrawn seat was made up of the old Brent South. I was amazed Teather hung ionto it, but she's toast for next time now anyway


----------



## Proper Tidy (Nov 3, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> That's Peter Black in Swansea isn't it? He was also the Parliamentary candidate in Swansea West, see above. Locally all the current talk from the political types (OK leftie beeer drinkers too!) that I hang out with, is that he hasn't got any hope at all of retaining his Assembly seat.


 
Yeah, looks like he could go. Looks like they could all go! He's got a regional seat though, which isn't quite so bad as constituency seats cos of the way the electoral system works. He's a complete wanker too.


----------



## moochedit (Nov 3, 2010)

> YouGov’ daily polling for the Sun has topline figures of CON 40%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, Others 10%.
> It’s the first time YouGov have shown the Lib Dems dropping into single figures, and the first time any pollster has shown them at such a low level since 1997.



http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 3, 2010)

Yes! I wanted to post that!


----------



## Belushi (Nov 3, 2010)

Hahahahaha


----------



## moochedit (Nov 3, 2010)

I wonder who the 10% "others" are ?


----------



## Belushi (Nov 3, 2010)

moochedit said:


> I wonder who the 10% "others" are ?


 
Plaid, SNP, Green, NI Parties


----------



## moochedit (Nov 3, 2010)

Belushi said:


> Plaid, SNP, Green, NI Parties


 
yeah.. i thought 10% sounded high.. but just checked and the "others" were 11.9% at the election in may.


----------



## moochedit (Nov 3, 2010)

I guess the lib dems should be counted in the "others" now ?


----------



## where to (Nov 3, 2010)

moochedit said:


> I guess the lib dems should be counted in the "others" now ?


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 3, 2010)

So this thread can be summarised as: you do a deal with the devil for short term gain, you're bound to end up in hell 


I can't feel too triumphalist about it though, because it is Labour, almost inevitably, benefitting from the lib dem's self-chosen leper status. 
Labour. Getting more support. They're still scum y'know.


----------



## Brainaddict (Nov 3, 2010)

And I wouldn't lend a 22p biro to Ed Milliband.


----------



## where to (Nov 5, 2010)

Swindon Moredon Council By-election yesterday:

   Jenny Millin LABOUR 887 ELECTED
    Toby Elliot Tory 755
    Oram UKIP 129
*Ward Lib Dem 98*

To remind you, this is how the result looked earlier this year in May :

    CATON, Maureen Kathleen - The Labour Party Candidate 1485
    FOWLER, Steven David - British National Party 310
* ING, George Lewis - Liberal Democrat 792*
    WREN, David William - The Conservative Party Candidate 1679 Elected


----------



## where to (Nov 5, 2010)

Hulme:

Labour 1031 (Amina Lone elected)
Green 451
*Libdem 151*
Tories 67

May:

Nigel Murphy Labour 2445
*Ian Kimpton Liberal Democrats 1229*
Gayle O’Donovan Green 1172
Amjad Nasir Conservative 490

From 23% of the vote to 9% in six months.

Tory vote looks down there too


----------



## kabbes (Nov 5, 2010)

Over the course of a single week, Clegg made a decision that will destroy the Lib Dems for generations, if not forever.


----------



## Callum91 (Nov 5, 2010)

kabbes said:


> Over the course of a single week, Clegg made a decision that will destroy the Lib Dems for generations, if not forever.


 
Good, the quicker the Lib Dems are wiped off the face of the political map the better.


----------



## where to (Nov 5, 2010)

Coleridge Ward, Cambridge City Council. Lab gain from Con. Lab 900 (44%, +11.7), Con 734 (35.9%, +7.5), *LD 223 (10.9%, -14.6)*, Green 137 (6.7%, -4.2), UKIP 53 (2.6%, -0.3). Swing of 1.6% from Con to Lab since May this year.

Cenarth Ward, Carmarthen CC. PC gain from Ind. PC 636 (81.9%, +59.4), Con 141 (18.1%, +18.1). Swing of 20.7% from Con to PC since 2008.

Ladywell Ward, LB Lewisham. Lab hold. Lab 1231 (41.4%, +3.2), Green 1041 (35%, +6.4), *LD 314 (10.6%, -5.2)*, People not Profit 233 (7.8%, nc), Con 153 (5.1%, -4.6). Swing of 1.6% from Lab to Green since May this year. This ward had 3 Green councillors until May.

Hulme Ward, Manchester MBC. Lab hold. Lab 1035 (60.7%, +14.9), Green 451 (26.5%, +4.5), *LD 151 (8.9%. -14.1)*, Con 67 (3.9%, -6.3). Swing of 5.2% from Green to Lab since May this year.

Ponteland East Division, Northumberland CC. Con hold. Con 843 (62.6%, +2.1), *LD 403 (29.9%, +1.6)*, Lab 100 (7.4%, +2.9). Swing of 0.3% from LD to Con since 2008.

Lyth Valley Ward, South Lakeland DC. Con gain from LD. Con 474 (49.5%, +5.1), *LD 451 (47.1%, -8.5)*, Lab 32 (3.3%, +3.3). Swing of 6.8% from LD to Con since 2008.

Moredon Ward, Swindon UA. Lab gain from Con. Lab 887 (47.5%, +12.2), Con 755 (40.4%, +1.9), UKIP 129 (6.9%, +6.9), *LD 98 (5.2%, -12.9)*. Swing of 5.2% from Con to Lab since May this year.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 8, 2010)

is this a significant defection? 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ts-in-despair-over-cleggs-uturns-2128018.html


----------



## _angel_ (Nov 10, 2010)

Oh look. Nick Clegg in the Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/09/poverty-plus-pound-not-enough

Check out the comments, he is almost universally loathed.

(ETA: just seen someone posted this yesterday on other thread- sorry)


----------



## trevhagl (Nov 10, 2010)

_angel_ said:


> Oh look. Nick Clegg in the Guardian:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/09/poverty-plus-pound-not-enough
> 
> Check out the comments, he is almost universally loathed.
> ...



but everything the twat is putting into action totally contradicts all his shite about making work pay and fairness etc...


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 10, 2010)

where to said:


> Hulme:
> 
> Labour 1031 (Amina Lone elected)
> Green 451
> ...


is that Hulme up manc way?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 14, 2010)

Yg/ST

39/41/10

First time the coalition polling together polls under 50%.

Govt approval at -10%.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Nov 14, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yg/ST
> 
> 39/41/10
> 
> ...


 
Minus ten is a very cold temperature. I hope they catch the flu. (yes I know)


----------



## moochedit (Nov 14, 2010)

They were under 50% added together on the 3rd nov as well - con 40/lab 40/ld 9 - didn't spot that at the time as the 9% stood out more.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2010)

Tonight

CON 40%, LAB 42%, LDEM 10%

Govt approval -10 again.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 15, 2010)

10% ha!!


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 15, 2010)

Labour are not really doing that much and their up to 42%


----------



## Combustible (Nov 15, 2010)

Looking at the poll detail,  more of the remaining Lib Dem voters support raising fees than opposing them.  It's not that surprising but it goes to show how they have managed to have tore away swathes of their support.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 16, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Tonight
> 
> CON 40%, LAB 42%, LDEM 10%
> 
> Govt approval -10 again.


same in yesterday's YouGov/sun poll


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 16, 2010)

37/42/10 tonight. 

Govt approval minus 10 yet again.


----------



## Santino (Nov 16, 2010)

That's a Labour majority of 34 according to YouGov.


----------



## belboid (Nov 16, 2010)

So that would even be a Labour majority after the tories have fiddled the boundaries!


----------



## Quartz (Nov 17, 2010)

Won't the fiddling of the boundaries depend upon next year's census?


----------



## where to (Nov 17, 2010)

ipsos mori confirming slight dent to tories

CON 36%(-3), LAB 39%(+3), LDEM 14%(nc)


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 17, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Won't the fiddling of the boundaries depend upon next year's census?



Only in part if that


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 17, 2010)

Quartz said:


> Won't the fiddling of the boundaries depend upon next year's census?


doubt it, it's more a continuous fiddle tbf.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 18, 2010)

ipos-mori


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 18, 2010)

god its taken a fucking nosedive hasnt it?


----------



## Callum91 (Nov 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> ipos-mori


 
Almost makes me erect just looking at that graph.


----------



## killer b (Nov 18, 2010)

what gave them that big jump at the beginning of october? conference?


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 18, 2010)

killer b said:


> what gave them that big jump at the beginning of october? conference?


yup - and the dive was due to the student fees thing


----------



## where to (Nov 19, 2010)

hammered in a by-election in Sandwell tonight, 2% of the vote.  beaten by the NF and nearly by the Greens.  Big Labour win.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2010)

how did they do last time?


----------



## Paulie Tandoori (Nov 19, 2010)

where to said:


> hammered in a by-election in Sandwell tonight, 2% of the vote.  beaten by the NF and nearly by the Greens.  Big Labour win.


it's hardly surprising tbh.


----------



## killer b (Nov 19, 2010)

16.5% swing from the tories - Labour 1320, tories 643, NF 76, lib dem 45

edit: greens at 42. if only they'd had 4 more votes...


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 19, 2010)

I'm hoping there'll be a lib dem split soon, that will be a bit of lightness and joy to take our minds off the grim economic news.


----------



## Combustible (Nov 19, 2010)

killer b said:


> how did they do last time?


 
2010 result Con 1989 Lab 1938 BNP 615 LD 534

But it looks like they haven't always contested the seat.


----------



## where to (Nov 20, 2010)

> Labour has a one-point lead over the Conservatives, with the Liberal Democrats at their lowest level in a ComRes poll since the election, according to a survey for the Sunday Mirror and The Independent on Sunday tomorrow.
> 
> Con      37% (+2)
> Lab       38% (+1)
> ...



Also of note:



> Do you agree or disagree with the following statements:
> 
> I expect to be worse off personally as a result of the spending cuts
> 
> ...


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2010)

'The cuts are unfair because they will be felt more by the poor than by wealthier households

Agree: 56% Disagree: 30%'

Interesting statistic, better than in the past and this is before the visible impact of the cuts, evictions, job losses, nurseries/nursing homes closing


----------



## treelover (Nov 20, 2010)

'I expect to be worse off personally as a result of the spending cuts

Agree: 65% Disagree: 16%'


this one is perhaps the most significant, self interest, all to play for


----------



## One_Stop_Shop (Nov 27, 2010)

Any updates?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2010)

Yes, latest ( for the times tmw i believe) is the lib-dems back on 9% again (three times now) -  40/40/9 - and the coalition on 14% approval - the lowest yet.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 28, 2010)

-14 it,s no more than they deserve


----------



## Nylock (Nov 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, latest ( for the times tmw i believe) is the lib-dems back on 9% again (three times now) -  40/40/9 - and the *coalition on 14% approval* - the lowest yet.


 
14% approval?!?! 

I know it's only a poll and all but that's a stunningly bad number...


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 28, 2010)

I think butchers left out the minus sign an easy to make typo


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2010)

Oops, yes  - 36% approve 50% disapprove


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2010)

Notable (pdf) that the lib-dems are on 5% for Scotland, 7% for the Midlands and 8% for London. Clegg's approval rating are shocking as well - they're split into groups of people who think he's doing either very well/badly or fairly well/badly - _both_ groups of approval added together are smaller than the _single_ group who think he's doing very badly, and when fairly badly is added he ends up with -24% approval.


----------



## ernestolynch (Nov 28, 2010)

It'll keep getting worse as more and more pissed off 18 year olds enter the franchise.

Lol.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 28, 2010)

It shows that no amount of outside political action can be as damaging as a few power thirsty fuckwits making a considered decision 

I'd put my deckchair up to watch, but it's fucking cold out.


----------



## Kaye (Nov 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Notable (pdf) that the lib-dems are on 5% for Scotland, 7% for the Midlands and 8% for London. Clegg's approval rating are shocking as well - they're split into groups of people who think he's doing either very well/badly or fairly well/badly - _both_ groups of approval added together are smaller than the _single_ group who think he's doing very badly, and when fairly badly is added he ends up with -24% approval.


 
Link doesn't appear to work.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 28, 2010)

Should now


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2010)

it's http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-261110_0.pdf


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Oops, yes  - 36% approve 50% disapprove


 
That is a lovely, lovely graph.


----------



## Balbi (Nov 28, 2010)

Yougov always amuse me with their pop-culture questions - Wagner and Widdecombe this week.


----------



## free spirit (Nov 28, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Notable (pdf) that the lib-dems are on 5% for Scotland, 7% for the Midlands and 8% for London. Clegg's approval rating are shocking as well - they're split into groups of people who think he's doing either very well/badly or fairly well/badly - _both_ groups of approval added together are smaller than the _single_ group who think he's doing very badly, and when fairly badly is added he ends up with -24% approval.


IMO the most shocking aspect of that poll is the voting intentions of people ho voted Lib Dem at the last election. The headline figure of only 44% of lib dem voters from the last election saying they'd vote lib dem again is bad enough, but that's 44% of those who ere able to state their current voting intentions. 8% of lib dem voters say that they'd not vote at all, and 22% don't know, meaning that 30% of former lib dem voters were excluded from the headline figure. If you included these voters, then basically only 30% of people who voted lib dem at the last election are sure that they'd vote for them again today.

those are incredible statistics, and the sort of stats that really should be sending shockwaves through the lib dem party, and ought really to result in the wider party asserting it's authority over clegg and forcing him to start defending Lib Dem policies within this coalition or risk being removed from the leadership of the party. This would of course require the lib dem party to grow some balls, but there are signs that this is starting to happen, eg with the choice of party chairman.


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

It's fairly easy for the Lib Dems to force a leadership contest. I can't remember the numbers, but it's summat like 75 constituency parties have to demand it - which is tiny given the number of constituency parties. Time to start writing to them. It's about the only way they can recover any credibility now. They'll be dormant for another 60 years otherwise.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 28, 2010)

ymu said:


> It's fairly easy for the Lib Dems to force a leadership contest. I can't remember the numbers, but it's summat like 75 constituency parties have to demand it


 
Not even the remotest chance of this happening.


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Not even the remotest chance of this happening.


 
Not today, no. Probably not tomorrow. But after the next riot? And the one after that? (And I'm expecting those to happen within the next fortnight, btw).

The parliamentary party is far, far more right-wing than their membership. A fair few councillors have already defected, and there will be plenty of appetite for this in areas where the Lib Dems are the only opposition to the Tories. Ultimately, they're self-interested - and most of their elected politicians are councillors who will be screwed at their next election (which is coming around a lot quicker than 2015).

75 constituencies out of more than 600 (<12.5%) seems pretty doable to me.

Might as well ask them. Anyone got a database of their constituency party addresses and chairmen? A mass letter-writing campaign pointing out just how easily the Lib Dems can stop this, and what heroes they will be if they are in the vanguard that deposes Clegg and brings down the coalition ... That's gonna prick a few careerist ears up.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 28, 2010)

ymu said:


> Not today, no. Probably not tomorrow. But after the next riot? And the one after that? (And I'm expecting those to happen within the next fortnight, btw).
> 
> The parliamentary party is far, far more right-wing than their membership. A fair few councillors have already defected, and there will be plenty of appetite for this in areas where the Lib Dems are the only opposition to the Tories. Ultimately, they're self-interested - and most of their elected politicians are councillors who will be screwed at their next election (which is coming around a lot quicker than 2015).
> 
> ...


 
Those among the membership who are implacably opposed to the Tories have already walked. You're ignoring among that among the Lib Dems a) opportunism is nothing new to them - their payroll base is in local govt where sharing power with the Cons, breaking doorstep promises etc is nothing especially novel b) the primacy to LDs of "pluralism" i.e. demonstrating that coalition politics "works" trumps all other considerations.


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Those among the membership who are implacably opposed to the Tories have already walked. You're ignoring among that among the Lib Dems a) opportunism is nothing new to them - their payroll base is in local govt where sharing power with the Cons, breaking doorstep promises etc is nothing especially novel b) the primacy to LDs of "pluralism" i.e. demonstrating that coalition politics "works" trumps all other considerations.


 
You're missing the fact that most of their councillors will no longer have seats in a couple of years time if they don't get Clegg out now. They have a lot more constituencies with councillors than MPs - and they control a lot of councils. This being in government thing is very new to them - and the councillors aren't going to care much if the payback is that they lose their expense accounts and local status.

You don't need all of them - less than 1 in 8 is enough.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 28, 2010)

ymu said:


> You're missing the fact that most of their councillors will no longer have seats in a couple of years time if they don't get Clegg out now. They have a lot more constituencies with councillors than MPs - and they control a lot of councils. This being in government thing is very new to them - and the councillors aren't going to care much if the payback is that they lose their expense accounts and local status.
> 
> You don't need all of them - less than 1 in 8 is enough.


 
Eh? Their L/G base is nothing new - it's been the bedrock of the party since its inception. They've learned from that how patronage cascades downwards. Of course there will be more opportunistic defections/resignations at this level but we'll see which of us is right about a leadership challenge.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 28, 2010)

The Sunday Times does not have the latest YouGov poll numbers. Again. The whole Op Ed is mostly Miliband and Clegg bashing. 



> Tough Nick has to hold his nervous party together in the hope the economy recovers and Lib Dem ratings improve. Woolly Ed has to show that he is relevant. In a period of political phoney war, he is ahead in the polls. But unless his party, let alone the country, can imagine him in No 10, Ed's wool will begin to unravel.



and this: 



> The student vote
> Source: YouGov
> 
> May 2010:
> ...


----------



## ymu (Nov 28, 2010)

> The student vote
> Source: YouGov
> 
> May 2010:
> ...


Tories and Lib Dems combined lower than the Lib Dems on their own in May.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 28, 2010)

ernestolynch said:


> It'll keep getting worse as more and more pissed off 18 year olds enter the franchise.
> 
> Lol.


 
Bang on the money earnesto the young students on the march will be of voting age come the next election


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

The other pollsters are now starting to come into line with YGs consistently awful results for the lib-dems. ComRes/Independent:

CON 36%(+1), LAB 40%(+3), LDEM 12%(-4).


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 30, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Eh? Their L/G base is nothing new - it's been the bedrock of the party since its inception. They've learned from that how patronage cascades downwards. Of course there will be more opportunistic defections/resignations at this level but we'll see which of us is right about a leadership challenge.


They key point here is; will the backbenchers, councillors and constituency parties ALL hold their nerve? When day in day out, they face utter, total hatred and electoral oblivion? I don't think they will


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 30, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> They key point here is; will the backbenchers, councillors and constituency parties ALL hold their nerve? When day in day out, they face utter, total hatred and electoral oblivion? I don't think they will


 
As I said, I don't think they'll _all_ hold their nerve - there will clearly be further defections and rebellions. But if there's any party dedicated to power for its own sake it's the Lib Dems - and the base has already experienced selling out and breaking promises _for themselves _at local government level. Once the fees vote goes through, they'll collectively have swallowed enough shit that they'll all be tainted. Clegg stays where he is until 2015.


----------



## Streathamite (Nov 30, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> As I said, I don't think they'll _all_ hold their nerve - there will clearly be further defections and rebellions. But if there's any party dedicated to power for its own sake it's the Lib Dems - and the base has already experienced selling out and breaking promises _for themselves _at local government level. Once the fees vote goes through, they'll collectively have swallowed enough shit that they'll all be tainted. Clegg stays where he is until 2015.


but what if it becomes crystal clear that the only possible way to avoid total wipeout is to leave the coalition and break the leader?


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> but what if it becomes crystal clear that the only possible way to avoid total wipeout is to leave the coalition and break the leader?


 but you're forgetting that every other obvious potential leader is as tainted as clegg and cable in this. i think that's one thing which would prevent the lib dems having an early exit from government, who takes clegg's place.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

I just hope the leadership starts to listen to the party, becuase at the moment  they aren't doing a very good job.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I just hope the leadership starts to listen to the party, becuase at the moment  they aren't doing a very good job.


that's leaders for you.


----------



## Santino (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I just hope the leadership starts to listen to the party, becuase at the moment  they aren't doing a very good job.


 
What you want to do is repeatedly support every single action they take in government and just hope that one day they spontaneously start listening to their members.


----------



## little_legs (Nov 30, 2010)

little_legs said:


> The Sunday Times does not have the latest YouGov poll numbers. Again.



Guardian only published the LibDem approval ratings yesterday: 



> ...the latest YouGov poll in the Sunday Times puts the party on just 9% with Nick Clegg's personal approval rating having fallen to minus 22, down from minus 13 a week ago and by far his lowest ever score as leader.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

Santino said:


> What you want to do is repeatedly support every single action they take in government and just hope that one day they spontaneously start listening to their members.


 
I know I have been defending the Lib Dems in government quite a lot, but i'm not totally uncritical of them. Increasingly these student protests are starting to get to me. My first ever involvement in politics was on the subject of tuition fees where I organised a road block and occupation at my FE college when Labour were brining them in.  
I have recently been trying to put pressure on people within the party to abstain or vote against.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

dp


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

Fuck right off


----------



## Refused as fuck (Nov 30, 2010)




----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Fuck right off


 
What would you do without me to insult I wonder?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Nov 30, 2010)

There are plenty of stupid dickhead tories around.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What would you do without me to insult I wonder?


 
My hatred is not dependent on you you egotistical dick.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> What would you do without me to insult I wonder?


 
we'll never know as you show no signs of departing for pastures new.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> My hatred is not dependent on you you egotistical dick.


 
Come on man, i'm only joking with you.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

I'm not


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 30, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> but what if it becomes crystal clear that the only possible way to avoid total wipeout is to leave the coalition and break the leader?


They've already made their bed, they're wedded to the Tories in the short to medium term whatever happens.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Come on man, i'm only joking with you.


 


all your posts are jokes, but i'm not persuaded that is your intention.


----------



## moon23 (Nov 30, 2010)

Pickman's model said:


> all your posts are jokes, but i'm not persuaded that is your intention.


 
It's not my overall intention, as said I enjoy exploring the arguments.


----------



## Pickman's model (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's not my overall intention, as said I enjoy exploring the arguments.


 
yeh? but you post such weak, ill-considered bollocks your exploration only appears to extend as far as the cupboard under the stairs.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's not my overall intention, as said I enjoy exploring the arguments.


You don't even _understand_ the arguments.


----------



## OneStrike (Nov 30, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I have recently been trying to put pressure on people within the party to abstain or vote against.



I can't distinguish between abstaining and voting against.  No, scratch that, Clegg and Cable abstaining is in many ways worse as it is utterly spineless, they would only be abstaining because they know they will still get their desired outcome while hoping to avoid the flack, people are more aware about this now though, it won't wash.  Utter scum.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 30, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> but what if it becomes crystal clear that the only possible way to avoid total wipeout is to leave the coalition and break the leader?


 
Pickman's Model has answered this for me - they'll all be tainted by the time anything like that has the opportunity to mobilise. Hughes, Kennedy, Campbell - all guilty men. It's going to become apparent that there's no point dropping the pilot, although there might be some individual self-interest for some in boarding another ship.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Nov 30, 2010)

Smurker said:


> I can't distinguish between abstaining and voting against.  No, scratch that, Clegg and Cable abstaining is in many ways worse as it is utterly spineless, they would only be abstaining because they know they will still get their desired outcome while hoping to avoid the flack, people are more aware about this now though, it won't wash.  Utter scum.


 
I'd agree with this, abstaining is even more contemptible - although Clegg and Cable's statements today at least make it explicit that an abstention is in effect an "aye" vote.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 2, 2010)

Angus Reid 
Con 35% Lab 40% libdem 13%

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2895


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 2, 2010)

Interesting that people are starting to suggest that YG are over-estimating the tories...


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 2, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> It's going to become apparent that there's no point dropping the pilot,


a desperate attempt to rescue from the wreckage what remains of their party? Plus personal advancement for whoever leads the coup? My other feeling - apart from the knowledge that the grassroots are already in a state of nervous breakdown, and the grassroots carry a lot of weight in the libdems - is that this lot haven't got the spine to tough it out for 5 years.


----------



## Santino (Dec 8, 2010)

8% lol

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2903


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2010)

Get the fuck in.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2010)

Thread title needs updating.


----------



## killer b (Dec 8, 2010)

they aren't exactly going to start climbing back up the polls after tomorrow either are they?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2010)

Death, when it comes, is often brutal. Long live death.


----------



## where to (Dec 8, 2010)

talk about a feel good thread


----------



## FreddyB (Dec 8, 2010)

"I don't know what the fuck I voted for but now I've got it I don't like it" needs carving in about 4 million foreheads


----------



## Kaye (Dec 9, 2010)

I just logged on to say "8%"


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Kaye said:


> I just logged on to say "8%"


 
There isn't a dent in the Tories popularity though, not sure if stealing LD seats will be enough for Labour.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Dec 9, 2010)

Kaye said:


> I just logged on to say "8%"


 
Snap.

RIP Liberal Democrats


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There isn't a dent in the Tories popularity though, not sure if stealing LD seats will be enough for Labour.


 
Was that directed at all the Labour cheer leaders on here?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Santino (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There isn't a dent in the Tories popularity though, not sure if stealing LD seats will be enough for Labour.


 
On the contrary, one lot of Tories are down to 8%.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Was that directed at all the Labour cheer leaders on here?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
No


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

Clegg hasn't even got a molecule of credibility left.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Clegg hasn't even got a molecule of credibility left.


 
I don't know, all three major parties have now done U-turns on tuition fees. There was a lot of fuss when Blair brought them in, but it was quickly forgotten. I suspect the media will get bored soon without sustained images of teenagers smashing up a few bits of glass and playing push and shove with the met. There are a lot more important and bigger issues for Clegg to win or break on.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't know, all three major parties have now done U-turns on tuition fees. There was a lot of fuss when Blair brought them in, but it was quickly forgotten. I suspect the media will get bored soon without sustained images of teenagers smashing up a few bits of glass and playing push and shove with the met. There are a lot more important and bigger issues for Clegg to win or break on.


No, he really doesn't have a a molecule of credibility left. 

People won't forget his bare faced lies in a hurry, and the Lib Dems are now seen as a shifty, lying, two faced bunch of fuckers who will say and do anything to get into power.

They're finished.


----------



## Santino (Dec 9, 2010)

Their only hope is a very public split into "left"/right factions, with the "left"ier ones leaving the government and praying that it's enough to keep their seats at the next election. They could call themselves, I don't know, social democrats or something.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't know, all three major parties have now done U-turns on tuition fees. There was a lot of fuss when Blair brought them in, but it was quickly forgotten. I suspect the media will get bored soon without sustained images of teenagers smashing up a few bits of glass and playing push and shove with the met. There are a lot more important and bigger issues for Clegg to win or break on.


 
When you say that you 'don't know' to the statement that Clegg has no credibility left you really do reveal just how out of touch with public feeling you are, and what you have to tell yourself each morning to keep the front up.


----------



## Fruitloop (Dec 9, 2010)

Was it quickly forgotten that Balir brought in tuition fees? Not by a fair few people I suspect.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

editor said:


> Lib Dems are now seen as a shifty, lying, two faced bunch of fuckers who will say and do anything to get into power.



The true mark of being in government, people think you are two faced fuckers. Never mind Labour's double U-Turn on fees or the Tories U-Turn on fees. It doesn't matter, ultimately parties are unpopular when in government fall our of government win back popularity and get back in. At least Labour had Union apologists supporting them in power and the Tories their own powerbase. Of course a minor party is going to get bum rapped when in government without that kind of structural support. 

The Lib Dems have been a protest party up until now, but it’s better to have a term in office and make some positive changes then heckle at the side-lines. I think some of the things the Lib Dems are doing  are worthwhile, and that it’s worth taking a hit in popularity. 

I think it will be a shame if some good Councillors lose their seats in May, you get good and bad councillors in all parties and it’s frustrating when bad ones get elected and good ones get defeated on national rather than local issues.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

It's amazing that anyone could mistake these protests for pro-labour protests - labout will be the ultimate electoral benificee (is that the word?) but only an out of touch desperate fool would mistake that for this being pro-labour.


----------



## editor (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The true mark of being in government, people think you are two faced fuckers.


Right. So in your mind, Clegg reneging on his pre election promise was actually a _good thing?_

Maybe you should change your name to the Moonies, because your grip on reality is about as strong.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The true mark of being in government, people think you are two faced fuckers. Never mind Labour's double U-Turn on fees or the Tories U-Turn on fees. It doesn't matter, ultimately parties are unpopular when in government fall our of government win back popularity and get back in. At least Labour had Union apologists supporting them in power and the Tories their own powerbase. Of course a minor party is going to get bum rapped when in government without that kind of structural support.
> 
> The Lib Dems have been a protest party up until now, but it’s better to have a term in office and make some positive changes then heckle at the side-lines. I think some of the things the Lib Dems are doing  are worthwhile, and that it’s worth taking a hit in popularity.
> 
> I think it will be a shame if some good Councillors lose their seats in May, you get good and bad councillors in all parties and it’s frustrating when bad ones get elected and good ones get defeated on national rather than local issues.



Lots of people thought you were two faced rat fuckers _before_ the coalition. Now a lot more people think that way. Now a lot more people _know_ that you're two faced fuckers. Nothing you say can help you now - nothing about 'union apologists' (want to expand on that?), no attempt to paint the extraordinary as ordinary, as the normal run of things - none of this will help you now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

This is normally the point at which the lib-dem leader pays someone to bump off someone. But they even fuck that up and end up with a dead dog instead. RIP Rinka - we will never forget.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> There isn't a dent in the Tories popularity though, not sure if stealing LD seats will be enough for Labour.


to fuck with Labour - you're still dead clowns walking!


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 9, 2010)

Someone on Twitter said something about a new poll putting the LDs below Ukip in Scotland (that noted hotbed of Ukip support). Has anyone see this?


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> This is normally the point at which the lib-dem leader pays someone to bump off someone. But they even fuck that up and end up with a dead dog instead. RIP Rinka - we will never forget.


 
We're all Rinka now.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> The true mark of being in government, people think you are two faced fuckers.


so the whole point of being in government is to be a bunch of lying, cynical, conniving, deceitful wankers? I thought you lot were all about being something 'new' and 'different'? you know - like your Glorious Leader said just about every waking minute, during your GE campaign?  
You've been rumbled, and you'll shortly be buried


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's amazing that anyone could mistake these protests for pro-labour protests


who is? Moon23 don't count - I mean _non_-eejits


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No


 
Then, in the context of these boards, what was the point of it?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> When you say that you 'don't know' to the statement that Clegg has no credibility left you really do reveal just how out of touch with public feeling you are, and what you have to tell yourself each morning to keep the front up.


 
Left leaning people are enraged I don't deny that, my spirits are high though. Off to do some Tabloid deliveries this afternoon, a good headline that guns at the Tories. We have some good local canvas data for next May for targeting and the Green’s are doing a good job of splitting what votes we are losing from the left.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

_Everyone hates us but i'm on a  cloud_


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Then, in the context of these boards, what was the point of it?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
No one has asked you to adjudicate Louis.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 9, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Someone on Twitter said something about a new poll putting the LDs below Ukip in Scotland (that noted hotbed of Ukip support). Has anyone see this?


 
Presumably from 3rd December Yougov/Sunday Times...

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-031210_0.pdf (PDF)

Total: Lib Dem 10%, UKIP 5%

Scotland: Lib Dem 5%, UKIP 6%


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't know, all three major parties have now done U-turns on tuition fees.


NO other party - major or minor - lined up ALL their MPs to sign the 'no increase in fees' pledge that yours did, and then pushed all out for student votes (successfully) off the back of it, and no other party promised fees abolition within 6 years. YOU DID - and it was a keynote promise. I thought you were meant to be different from the other parties, anyway. Stop trying to have it both ways.


> There was a lot of fuss when Blair brought them in, but it was quickly forgotten.


Oh yeah? WAS IT??? I doubt it.


> I suspect the media will get bored soon without sustained images of teenagers smashing up a few bits of glass and playing push and shove with the met.


It's not just about that, you dick! How divorced from reality you are. here's reality; you've lost evey single student vote, every single youth vote, and prolly most of their parents too. Plus those of anyone who cares about the credibility of political parties


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> Presumably from 3rd December Youguv/Sunday Times...
> 
> http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-031210_0.pdf (PDF)
> 
> Total: Lib Dem 10%, UKIP 5%



Fantastic


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Left leaning people are enraged I don't deny that, *my spirits are high though*. Off to do some Tabloid deliveries this afternoon, a good headline that guns at the Tories. We have some good local canvas data for next May for targeting and the Green’s are doing a good job of splitting what votes we are losing from the left.


 
The very defintion of an unthinking party hack.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> so the whole point of being in government is to be a bunch of lying, cynical, conniving, deceitful wankers? I thought you lot were all about being something 'new' and 'different'? you know - like your Glorious Leader said just about every waking minute, during your GE campaign?
> You've been rumbled, and you'll shortly be buried


 
I don't think the party is lying, cynical or deceitful I think it's dealing in the reality of politics where you have to make tough decisions and compromises you don't want to. Most people on this board have the luxury of idealism detached from power.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No one has asked you to adjudicate Louis.


who the fuck are you to talk for anyone other than yourself?


----------



## Santino (Dec 9, 2010)

"We had a pretty solid day in the field."


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think the party is lying, cynical or deceitful I think it's dealing in the reality of politics where you have to make tough decisions and compromises you don't want to. Most people on this board have the luxury of idealism detached from power.


 
Problem for you is that everyone else thinks - correctly - that you _are_ lying, cynical and deceitful. You are.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Santino said:


> "We had a pretty solid day in the field."


 
If we can get the lib-dem/ponting link up going we're going to have a fantastic few months.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No one has asked you to adjudicate Louis.


 
I'm not offering adjudication. I am asking you to make sense.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The very defintion of an unthinking party hack.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
My spirts are high because the party is in a coalition locally with Labour and doing a lot of good things in the local Council. I look at improvements in my local community Louis thanks to the people I know and work with getting stuck in and making a differance. 

Westminster politics is only one part of the story and I recognise a smaller party isn't going to get it's own way.


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I don't think the party is lying, cynical or deceitful I think it's dealing in the reality of politics where you have to make tough decisions and compromises you don't want to. Most people on this board have the luxury of idealism detached from power.


 
What's the fecking point of voting for anyone then?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Problem for you is that everyone else thinks - correctly - that you _are_ lying, cynical and deceitful. You are.


this. beat me to it, fuckety


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> If we can get the lib-dem/ponting link up going we're going to have a fantastic few months.


 

well, at least poor ol' punter was brutally honest in his press conference...


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> My spirts are high because the party is in a coalition locally with Labour and doing a lot of good things in the local Council. I look at improvements in my local community Louis thanks to the people I know and work with getting stuck in and making a differance.
> 
> Westminster politics is only one part of the story and I recognise a smaller party isn't going to get it's own way.


 
Translation: my spirits are high through a combination of denial and the demands of party propoganda. As I said the very definiton of a hack.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 9, 2010)

stephj said:


> Scotland: Lib Dem 5%, UKIP 6%


 
Fantastic  This, remember, is a party which got 19% of the Scottish vote in May and 23% north of he border in 2005.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> What's the fecking point of voting for anyone then?


 
Because most politicians do try to achieve what they aim for, even if in reality it's very hard to. Politics is almost always about having to accept dirty little compromises unless you have that rare opportunity of little opposition.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Because most *politicians do try to achieve what they aim for*, even if in reality it's very hard to. Politics is almost always about having to accept dirty little compromises unless you have that rare opportunity of little opposition.


 
Cabinet posts.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> I'm not offering adjudication. I am asking you to make sense.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



It does make sense, you understood it well enough to have to frame your critism within the 'context of the board'.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Cabinet posts.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Some people are like this, Greg Mullholland for instance is very self-interested. His opposition to fees being based entirley on his own re-election prospects. This won't change untill you reform parliment, the amount we pay MPs and the way we elect MPs.


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 9, 2010)




----------



## stethoscope (Dec 9, 2010)

Anyone got some rope?


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Some people are like this, Greg Mullholland for instance is very self-interested. His opposition to fees being based entirley on his own re-election prospects. This won't change untill you reform parliment, the amount we pay MPs and the way we elect MPs.



Are the tories going to do this then?


----------



## chilango (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Because most politicians do try to achieve what they aim for, even if in reality it's very hard to. Politics is almost always about having to accept dirty little compromises unless you have that rare opportunity of little opposition.


 
Since when is a complete, 100% uturn on an explicitly made key pledge a "little compromise"?

If as you argue, someone else really limits the decisions that politicians can/will make then it doesn't say much for democracy now does it?

Again, taking your arguments at face value, *what is the point of voting?*


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Translation: my spirits are high through a combination of denial and the demands of party propoganda. As I said the very definiton of a hack.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
No becuase i'm supporting some really good local town councillors who represent my village and work for free to actualy improve things and make a differance. Westminster politics is only one side of life, here in my rural location what matters most is my own community.


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

chilango said:


> Since when is a complete, 100% uturn on an explicitly made key pledge a "little compromise"?
> 
> If as you argue, someone else really limits the decisions that politicians can/will make then it doesn't say much for democarcy now does it?


 
Labour's U-Turn was in power with a majority, the Lib Dem's U-Turn is born out of a coalition compromise. Your right though the fact that all three parties have done U-Turns over the issue is bad for democracy. It's not something I think is a good thing, i'm just realistic about why it happens. Parties have to sacrafice a lot of principle to win political power in the UK.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It does make sense, you understood it well enough to have to frame your critism within the 'context of the board'.


 
It made sense in the same way that someone trying to sell me rotten oranges on the presumption that I actually prefer rotten strawberries; i.e. it made no sense at all.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Some people are like this, Greg Mullholland for instance is very self-interested. His opposition to fees being based entirley on his own re-election prospects. This won't change untill you reform parliment, the amount we pay MPs and the way we elect MPs.


 
Yeah, we should pay liars double their current wage....??


----------



## Fedayn (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> *Because most politicians do try to achieve what they aim for*, even if in reality it's very hard to. Politics is almost always about having to accept dirty little compromises unless you have that rare opportunity of little opposition.


 
Hmmmm, not including any Lib Dems, who, hope to achieve their aim indeed unbreakabler pledg of opposing any rise in tuiton fees by tripling them to possibly £9k oer year. A novel way of securing that little aim.....


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No becuase i'm supporting some really good local town councillors who represent my village and work for free to actualy improve things and make a differance. Westminster politics is only one side of life, here in my rural location what matters most is my own community.


 
The denial part is that you're denying both the relationship between the local and parliamentary party and the massive unpopularity of the latter. The propaganda part is your risible attempt to paint some lemon tinged idyll in which you scamper about doing good to one and all.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 9, 2010)

Not only that but saying they want to abolish them ... is the bit on tuition fees still on the education section of the lib dems website btw?!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

I need to post this again


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's amazing that anyone could mistake these protests for pro-labour protests - labout will be the ultimate electoral benificee (is that the word?) but only an out of touch desperate fool would mistake that for this being pro-labour.


Beneficiary.

And, quite. In case moon hadn't noticed, these protests are dominated by a demographic which overwhelmingly voted Lib Dem in May, with more students voting for them than Tory and Labour combined. It's the betrayal wot done it.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Because most politicians do try to achieve what they aim for, even if in reality it's very hard to.


how do you square this with the fact you'd dumped virtually all of the key parts of your manifesto - including ALL the promises you campaigned most loudly on - as part of the coalition agreement?


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Because most politicians do try to achieve what they aim for, even if in reality it's very hard to. Politics is almost always about having to accept dirty little compromises unless you have that rare opportunity of little opposition.


 
And being able to justify _anything_ through your blinkers, in your case.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Labour's U-Turn was in power with a majority, the Lib Dem's U-Turn is born out of a coalition compromise. Your right though the fact that all three parties have done U-Turns over the issue is bad for democracy. It's not something I think is a good thing, i'm just realistic about why it happens. Parties have to sacrafice a lot of principle to win political power in the UK.


Labour did NOT make 'no fees' the centrepiece of their elction campaign in an all-out bid for the student vote. You DID make 'no fee rises and abolition within 6 years' the cornerstone of yours, whilst all the while your  leadership was planning to trash the pledge. 
Look, you're utterly fucking crtap at this spinning so give up and at least aim for honesty.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> No becuase i'm supporting some really good local town councillors who represent my village and work for free to actualy improve things and make a differance. Westminster politics is only one side of life, here in my rural location what matters most is my own community.


wee wow fucking whee if everything's smelling of fucking roses in your village, the whole country can sleep easily, can't it?


----------



## stupid dogbot (Dec 9, 2010)

Hey, look on the bright side. At least the LibDems will still have _one_ voter later...


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> how do you square this with the fact you'd dumped virtually all of the key parts of your manifesto - including ALL the promises you campaigned most loudly on - as part of the coalition agreement?


 
I compare the Conservative policy to the Lib Dem policy whilst consdering the ratio of Conservative MPs to Lib Dem MPs


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> wee wow fucking whee if everything's smelling of fucking roses in your village, the whole country can sleep easily, can't it?


 
Think Global act Local. I can't change the world Streathamite, but I can change my local community.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 9, 2010)

Yep, you can attack the poorest within it, fuck up the NHS and destroy the idea of society as mutually beneficial.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I compare the Conservative policy to the Lib Dem policy whilst consdering the ratio of Conservative MPs to Lib Dem MPs


why should anyone ever trust you or anyone in your party ever again - seeing as you've just admitted that all your principles and all your integrity are both up for sale?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> Think Global act Local. I can't change the world Streathamite, but I can change my local community.


who the fuck would ever trust you with the keys to the village hall, on current form?


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> Labour did NOT make 'no fees' the centrepiece of their elction campaign in an all-out bid for the student vote. You DID make 'no fee rises and abolition within 6 years' the cornerstone of yours, whilst all the while your  leadership was planning to trash the pledge.
> Look, you're utterly fucking crtap at this spinning so give up and at least aim for honesty.


 
It's simply not true that 'fees' were the centrpiece of the election manifesto and campaign. They were one aspect of it. - http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-set...les-four-steps-to-a-fairer-britain-17505.html


----------



## moon23 (Dec 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> why should anyone ever trust you or anyone in your party ever again - seeing as you've just admitted that all your principles and all your integrity are both up for sale?


 
I've done no such thing, i've said they are up for political compromise if it means we can acheive real results.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

You really don't get it, do you, Moon23?. Let me spell out to you what, I'd say, the whole country thinks of you: WE. CAN'T TRUST. YOU. YOU. LIE. You've broken that trust, and all this pathetic, so-bad-it's-comical spinning from you can't repair that. Your credibility is 100% shot.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

gosh, suddenly moonie is making a new argument.  Exactly the one that Clegg started making yesterday.  What is the point of this tedious repetition of Liberal Scum press releases?


----------



## kabbes (Dec 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> You really don't get it, do you, Moon23. Let me spell out to you what, I'd say, the whole country thinks of you: WE. CAN'T TRUST. YOU. YOU. LIE. You've broken that trust, and all this pathetic, so-bad-it's-comical spinning from you can't repair that. Your credibility is 100% shot.


 
It's true.


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I've done no such thing, i've said they are up for political compromise if it means we can acheive real results.


 
whether you've said it or not, you dont have any principles. Nor does anyone in your party.  Dead men walking.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> It's simply not true that 'fees' were the centrpiece of the election manifesto and campaign. They were one aspect of it. - http://www.libdemvoice.org/nick-set...les-four-steps-to-a-fairer-britain-17505.html


stop lying, you miserable little man!Your leading politicians and campaigners made a 5-course meal out of it at every turn, in a flat-out bid to get the student vote.
And given how utterly hollow and false that article on your website reads - do you really think anyone's gonna take a single word of it seriously?


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

moon23 said:


> I've done no such thing, i've said they are up for political compromise if it means we can acheive real results.


They amount to the same thing, you utter fucking moron!


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

moonie has principles, but if you dont like them, he has others.


----------



## ymu (Dec 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> stop lying, you miserable little man!Your leading politicians and campaigners made a 5-course meal out of it at every turn, in a flat-out bid to get the student vote.
> And given how utterly hollow and false that article on your website reads - do you really think anyone's gonna take a single word of it seriously?


 
Uh huh. The only electoral constituency which the Lib Dems clearly won (48% of students voted Lib Dem) are being completely screwed over on a policy for which there is zero mandate, and which the Lib Dems have a clear mandate to block. It is the clearest possible indication that the Lib Dems have no intention of influencing anything - they're just giving the Tories the votes they need to put through policies that the majority voted against.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 9, 2010)

belboid said:


> moonie has principles, but if you dont like them, he has others.



well, you are a Marxist, after all.....


----------



## belboid (Dec 9, 2010)

of course, it should read '...if _Dave_ doesn't like them...'


----------



## Wolveryeti (Dec 9, 2010)

Clegg paid firm £9000 to find people willing to listen to him speak. 





			
				Sheffield Central MP Paul Blomfield  said:
			
		

> If they had to pay to get people along to hear Nick Clegg before the election, they would have to pay a lot more money now.




 lolz


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 9, 2010)

Streathamite said:
			
		

> stop lying, you miserable little man!



Moon23 and Streathamite, earlier ...


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 10, 2010)

If i read this survey right ,libdem support in the north east 4% ,greater london 10%


http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevent...rt-dropping-dramatically-in-some-regions.aspx


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 10, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> If i read this survey right ,libdem support in the north east 4% ,greater london 10%
> 
> 
> http://www.ipsos-mori.com/newsevent...rt-dropping-dramatically-in-some-regions.aspx


 
Down from 35% to 16% _in the South West_ - they're properly fucked now


----------



## ernestolynch (Dec 10, 2010)

Lol


----------



## Santino (Dec 10, 2010)

Lol, indeed


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 10, 2010)

In the sixties when they only used to win no more than six seats the seats they did win were in the highlands of scotland and  in the south west.so will they been feeling dejavu


----------



## ovaltina (Dec 10, 2010)

vince cable on telly this nothing saying the coalition will be stronger for having gone through adversity. the guys hopeless at spin.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

I wonder what odds you can get on the Lib Dems getting literally zero seats in the next election?


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I wonder what odds you can get on the Lib Dems getting literally zero seats in the next election?



That would be astonishing.


----------



## Kaye (Dec 10, 2010)

Richard Huzzey was a bit of a party hack in Oxford - he's resigned from the party: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-richard-huzzey-i-resign-22345.html


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

chilango said:


> That would be astonishing.


 
It really would.  But the vagaries of FPTP, (or FPTP+, known as AV), mean that a party teetering on the edge of critical mass can easily disappear into total oblivion.

If they really are down to 16% in the South-West then they could have lost that critical mass.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

William of Walworth said:


> Moon23 and Streathamite, earlier ...


I see myself as more of a mr la-di-da gunner graham, meself...


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> In the sixties when they only used to win no more than six seats the seats they did win were in the highlands of scotland and  in the south west.so will they been feeling dejavu


and in the scottish border region, eg David Steel


----------



## nino_savatte (Dec 10, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> It's amazing that anyone could mistake these protests for pro-labour protests - labout will be the ultimate electoral benificee (is that the word?) but only an out of touch desperate fool would mistake that for this being pro-labour.



The word you're looking for is "beneficiary".


----------



## Kaye (Dec 10, 2010)

Kaye said:


> Richard Huzzey was a bit of a party hack in Oxford - he's resigned from the party: http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-richard-huzzey-i-resign-22345.html


 
The comments from Liberal Democrat members below that post are fantastic. I do feel sorry for the people going "20 years a member" and suchlike though.


----------



## ymu (Dec 10, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> and in the scottish border region, eg David Steel


 
Well, they're behind UKIP in Scotland on the latest polls (5% v 6%). Zero seats at the next election would be a decent punt if they're down to 16% in the SW.

Aces.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

Kaye said:


> The comments from Liberal Democrat members below that post are fantastic. I do feel sorry for the people going "20 years a member" and suchlike though.


 
aye. i feel sorry for them too


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

ymu said:


> Well, they're behind UKIP in Scotland on the latest polls (5% v 6%). Zero seats at the next election would be a decent punt if they're down to 16% in the SW.
> 
> Aces.


indeed Aces, and I'm thinking kabbes may have come up with a smart way to turn a tidy profit on this!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> aye. i feel sorry for them too


 I don't. Fuck 'em.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

ah but you know im soft ...


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

Kaye said:


> The comments from Liberal Democrat members below that post are fantastic.


I found them actually quite moving. I may disagree with everything even their rank and file stand for, but I don't doubt their sincerity


----------



## chilango (Dec 10, 2010)

Time to dig this out again?


----------



## scifisam (Dec 10, 2010)

kabbes said:


> I wonder what odds you can get on the Lib Dems getting literally zero seats in the next election?


 
I actually checked the betting sites the other day hoping to get in before the odds went down, but couldn't find anything. I'd say it's likely that they'll get no MPs, and close to certain that they'll be in single digits. And of course, a single digit, usually the middle one, is what they're getting from most people now.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> And of course, a single digit, usually the middle one, is what they're getting from most people now.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2010)

I think he's right you know:



> • Nick Clegg has defended the rise in tuition fees – which contradicts a pre-election Lib Dem pledge – as "the best and fairest possible approach". The Lib Dem leader and deputy prime minister said his party would now be able to "move forward without rancour and in a united way" (see 9.36am). Twenty-one Lib Dem MPs voted against the tuition fees rise, with five abstaining. Only 16 followed the leadership in voting for the policy. (See 9.29am for a full list.)


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

Some lib dems i knew from uni are thinking of leaving the party, which is a massively big thing, because one of them is a complete fanatic ...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Some lib dems i knew from uni are thinking of leaving the party, which is a massively big thing, because one of them is a complete fanatic ...


 
Call them all cunts and picket their homes, should convince them


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

yeah they're not mates, just fb "friends", dont worry


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yeah they're not mates, just fb "friends", dont worry


 
I'll call them all cunts on your facebook if you like


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 10, 2010)

feel free, although none of them post stuff on my wall tbf


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> feel free, although none of them post stuff on my wall tbf


 
I'm only joking, I'm not going to deface your facebook. I'm just in the mood for calling people cunts.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> yeah they're not mates, just fb "friends", dont worry


that's rather a relief to hear!


----------



## creak (Dec 10, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> Some lib dems i knew from uni are thinking of leaving the party, which is a massively big thing, because one of them is a complete fanatic ...


 
I read that as throwing a leaving party, which I think would be quite a pointed way for local Lib Dems to underline their disgust when renouncing their membership.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 10, 2010)

scifisam said:


> And of course, a single digit, usually the middle one, is what they're getting from most people now.


very good!


----------



## embree (Dec 10, 2010)

Is this the thread for laughing at Lib Dem by-election results?

Bewsey & Whitecross By-election Result (Warrington) Thursday December 9th 2010

Labour GAIN from LD

LAB 1032, 
LD 221, 
CON 112, 
GRN 47, 
IND 33.
(Swing LibDems>LAB:17.4)


----------



## where to (Dec 11, 2010)

this is the thread for all Lib Dem vote lols, so yes


----------



## ymu (Dec 11, 2010)

Yes, yes it is.


----------



## the button (Dec 11, 2010)

This is my longest-running thread ever.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 11, 2010)

creak said:


> I read that as throwing a leaving party, which I think would be quite a pointed way for local Lib Dems to underline their disgust when renouncing their membership.


----------



## Santino (Dec 11, 2010)

the button said:


> This is my longest-running thread ever.


 
Let us hope that it runs a while longer. 


But not too long.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 12, 2010)

Con 40% Lab 42% Ldem 9%

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

combined con dem vote only 7 points ahead


----------



## moochedit (Dec 12, 2010)

> 46% of Lib Dem voters in Lib Dem seats are saying they are likely not to support the party in 2015





> 36% of Lib Dem voters say they wouldn’t have voted Lib Dem at the last election had they known the party was going to enter coalition with the Conservatives.



http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2010)

Ashcroft has paid for a survey (pdf)of 2000 lib-dem votes in lib-dem seats i.e the key lib-dem voters, the ones who'll decide if they retain MPs (as they're not going to be picking up any new ones). 

Key figures seem to be 36% of Lib Dem voters say they _wouldn’_t have voted Lib Dem at the last election had they known the party was going to enter coalition with the Conservatives -and 46% say they won't vote lib-dem again -  that's in _existing_ lib-dem seats remember, where support may be taken to be harder than elsewhere. If that feeds through to the next general election they're going to lose all their south-west seats and all their city seats. 

If you look at how these lib-dem voters with lib-dem seats feel about how the coalition has gone only small minorities believe they've achieved anything good from the coalition, which gives grounds for suggesting that the figures may yet worsen before 2015. The absolute _best_ finding was that 37% though they'd managed to improve welfare. Their best result. 

A gap is also clearly opening up between the position that the coalition was the right thing to do in the circumstances _at that time_ and that they're doing well/the right thing _today_. Previously support for the former view was pretty firmly attached to support for the latter - it's no longer. That's a really useful gap/contradiction that should be worked on.


----------



## little_legs (Dec 12, 2010)

The Sunday Times, Dec. 12: 



> ...YouGov poll for The Sunday Times, which puts Labour two points ahead of the Tories, on 42% - though 40% of people say they are unconvinced that he himself is doing a good job. The Lib Dems languish on nine points, battered by their tuition fees U-turn.


----------



## Plumdaff (Dec 12, 2010)

What do we think about the possibility of a split, and how soon? If I was Charles Kennedy (or any of the other LD "left" who voted against tuition fee rises) I'd be putting some serious distance between myself and the Orange Bookers. The only LDers I can see still winning are in the Highlands and SW if they're seen to be independent of the coalition. Similiarly I wouldn't be surprised if Clegg and Cable either join or get some non-aggression pact after their services to Toryism.


----------



## Santino (Dec 13, 2010)

Are the current polls adjusting for people who won't even admit that they voted Lib Dem last time?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

Seems they're at least aware of the potential problem Shy Lib-dems


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 13, 2010)

41/42/9

Approval -14

Lib-dems steadying at under 9, approval rating for govt showing two record _minusi_ in one week


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 14, 2010)

39/42/9

Approval -15. Lowest yet.


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 15, 2010)

intersting comment from the Guardian o :



> The Ipsos Moris poll for Reuters alsoshows signs that Lib Dem supporters are not that keen to form a partnership with Labour. Although Lib Dem voters at the last election are dissatisfied with the government by 62 points to 32 points, they feel warmly towards Cameron.



Wouldn't bother with any ideas of a split quite yet but Huhns '"two years of immense unpopularity" isn't going to be painless in the Council elections in 2011


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

*fucked*

Something potentially electorally significant from Ipsos-Mori (who incidentally have the lib-dems down to 11% nationally in their monthly poll - they've been polling them higher than YG until recently) - regional breakdown of lib-dem support - this is slightly skewed as it includes the immediate post-coalition period as well, before the lib-dems really started their terminal decline, so the true picture may well be _even worse_ for them.

Support in the NE is 4%

In their utterly crucial SW region there has been a 16% swing from lib-dem to labour and support has dropped from 35% in the GE to 16% now. This is their best area remember.

London is on 10%, an 11% swing to labour.

Every single region has a lib-dem to labour swing.


----------



## kabbes (Dec 15, 2010)

That'll be zero seats then...


----------



## creak (Dec 15, 2010)

What are the odds on that, anyone know? I might stick a speculative tenner down.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 15, 2010)

lagtbd said:


> What do we think about the possibility of a split, and how soon?


same as 'we' thought on this earlier thread!
do keep up!


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 15, 2010)

creak said:


> What are the odds on that, anyone know? I might stick a speculative tenner down.



Better bet is number of Sinn Fein seats in the Republic


----------



## cointreauman (Dec 15, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Better bet is number of Sinn Fein seats in the Republic


 
I make you spot on there

The Greens have fucked themselves big time so a few Euros on SF should be an easy win - get it on while the odds are reasonable

C


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 15, 2010)

42/40/8

Approval -15%

So lib-dems series now is:

6/12 - 10
7/12 - 9
8/12 - 8
9/12 - 11
10/12 - 9
11/12 - 9
12/12 - 9
13/12 - 9
14/12 - 9
15/12 - 8

Time to change the thread title?


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 15, 2010)

They will bottom at 7% ,any more bets


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 16, 2010)

cointreauman said:


> I make you spot on there
> 
> The Greens have fucked themselves big time so a few Euros on SF should be an easy win - get it on while the odds are reasonable
> 
> C



Off topic but here are the SF odds.

3 or under 	16/1
4 or 5 	12/1
6 or 7 	7/1
Exactly 8 	10/1
9 or 10 	13/2
11 or 12 	5/1
13 or 14 	7/2
15 or 16 	4/1
17 or 18 	5/1
19 or 20 	13/2
More than 20


----------



## kabbes (Dec 16, 2010)

The Lib Dems must be in serious danger of becoming the fourth party.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 16, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> They will bottom at 7% ,any more bets


 
Sounds about right.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 16, 2010)

I can easily forsee polls putting them at 3%. If they drop another couple of points, which they should do after April when the cuts start to bite, it's within the margin of error.


----------



## kyser_soze (Dec 16, 2010)

Supreme psephology from you on this thread BA, excellent sources.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 16, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> Off topic but here are the SF odds.
> 
> 3 or under 	16/1
> 4 or 5 	12/1
> ...


some tempting odds there...
e2a; which bookie you quoting?


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 16, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> some tempting odds there...
> e2a; which bookie you quoting?



Paddy Power

I was looking a bit harder for Nigel irritables United left alliance Odds but news of that development hasn't reached Paddy power ( either that or he has information  that we don't have about them splitting) so there are odd on people not profit and odds on the SP as well. We need a bit of objective info here on where and if SF are going to come up against ULA and what the likely outcome would be if that is the scenario. I have put an initial tenner on 11-12 SF seats untill I get more info.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 16, 2010)

excellent, cheers for all that T39S! i'm tempted equally by the 11-12 or 13-14 (tho they are a little tight wityh their odds on the latter option imo)


----------



## The39thStep (Dec 16, 2010)

Streathamite said:


> excellent, cheers for all that T39S! i'm tempted equally by the 11-12 or 13-14 (tho they are a little tight wityh their odds on the latter option imo)


 
The key thing here is to ignore what every rosy coloured info Nigel irritable gives us


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 16, 2010)

41/41/9

Approval -14 

That is now a solid sub 10 for the lib-dems. We used to joke about  if they would hit -10 before xmas - never mind stay there.


----------



## audiotech (Dec 17, 2010)

By-election in Spitalfields and Banglatown ward of Tower Hamlets.

 Respect gain from Labour with 44.8% of the vote.

 Lib Dem vote collpases to 2.2%

http://www.eastlondonadvertiser.co....talfields_and_banglatown_by_election_1_755771


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

The39thStep said:


> The key thing here is to ignore what every rosy coloured info Nigel irritable gives us


ah right, of course he's partisan....


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

audiotech said:


> By-election in Spitalfields and Banglatown ward of Tower Hamlets.
> 
> Respect gain from Labour with 44.8% of the vote.
> 
> ...


That's the fallout from the Lutfur Rahman affair that damaged Labour there


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

audiotech said:


> By-election in Spitalfields and Banglatown ward of Tower Hamlets.
> 
> Respect gain from Labour with 44.8% of the vote.
> 
> ...



Respect 666 (45.4; +22.98)
Lab 553 (37.7; +2.8)
Con 135 (9.2; -2.8)
Green 52 (3.5; -6.6)
LD Fernando North 33 (2.2; -15.4)
Ind 28 (1.9; -1.1)
Majority 113
Turnout 16.83%
Respect gain from Lab
Percentage change is since May 201


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

Every libdem lost votes last night = ranging from about -5 to -20%.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

The latest YG (pdf)has a couple of supplementary questions:

It is led by people of real ability:
lib-dems 5%

Its leaders are prepared to take tough and
unpopular decisions
lib-dems 6%

The kind of society it wants is broadly the kind of
society I want
10%


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Respect 666 (45.4; +22.98)
> Lab 553 (37.7; +2.8)
> Con 135 (9.2; -2.8)
> Green 52 (3.5; -6.6)
> ...


The LDs used to be dead strong in Tower Hamlets, if the tories are outpolling the by 3 to one in spitalfields (aka gentrificationville), it really _is_ all over
e2a: my bad - _five_ to one


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

33 votes! 33!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)

Tbf, that's 33 more than they were forecast, which is a 100% gain.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

Why you always got to be so tribalist?


----------



## stethoscope (Dec 17, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 33 votes! 33!


----------



## kabbes (Dec 17, 2010)

33 more than zero is not a 100% gain.


----------



## DotCommunist (Dec 17, 2010)

Respect pulling in the satanic vote there


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

I saw that


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)

kabbes said:


> 33 more than zero is not a 100% gain.


 
Yeahiknow. Those were satirical figures. Put your pocket protector away.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> Tbf, that's 33 more than they were forecast, which is a 100% gain.


actually, they've always polled well in that part of Tower Hamlets; it's just on the edge of the City, and has a large yuppie element


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)




----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

From twice as many votes as the Tories to less than a quarter of their total. In six months. In a seat where they were second to Labour, who fucked up so badly they lost to Respect. Marvellous.


----------



## ymu (Dec 17, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


>


 
He doesn't get your joke because it was a shit joke. Noone has ever predicted zero votes, just zero seats ...


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)

I know it was a shit joke!  can a man not troll a lib dem patsy in peace anymore??!


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 17, 2010)

That was the joke!


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 17, 2010)

id love them to get zero votes


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> I know it was a shit joke!  can a man not troll a lib dem patsy in peace anymore??!


only if they do it _well and stylishly_


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 17, 2010)

I've read the "How to post as moon23" guidebook twice and "stylish" isn't mentioned once. If it's mentioned in the 2nd edition it'll be a 100% gain for the Lib Dems.


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 17, 2010)

Refused as fuck said:


> I've read the "How to post as moon23" guidebook twice and "stylish" isn't mentioned once. If it's mentioned in the 2nd edition it'll be a 100% gain for the Lib Dems.


much better!


----------



## redsquirrel (Dec 18, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 33 votes! 33!


People who stand as independents and get their family and friends to vote for them can get more votes than that.


----------



## belboid (Dec 18, 2010)

its still 24 above the Socialist Alliances lowest vote


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 18, 2010)

wouldnt it be great if they got no votes in an area?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 18, 2010)

Sectarian


----------



## Idris2002 (Dec 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> wouldnt it be great if they got no votes in an area?



Wouldn't it be great if it was like this all the time?



butchersapron said:


> Sectarian


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 18, 2010)

frogwoman said:


> wouldnt it be great if they got no votes in an area?


 
Sadly it couldn,t happen ,they get i think it's ten local people have to sign a form for them to stand so some one goto vote for them


----------



## embree (Dec 18, 2010)

Have we done the Lib Dem resignations from Rochdale and Wolverhampton councils yet? Seven LD councillors in Rochdale resigned from the party, allowing Labour to take minority control. One LD in Wolves resigned and voted with Labour allowing them to take control


----------



## embree (Dec 18, 2010)

Let's have a by-election result:

Kent CC, Dover Town
* Lab 1491 (43.7; +14.3)
* Con 1348 (39.5; -4.3)
* UKIP 404 (11.8; +11.8)
* LD 170 (5.0; -21.9)
* Percentage change is since June 2009.

Looks like the Tories losing some votes to UKIP as well as Lib Dems disappearing


----------



## ymu (Dec 18, 2010)

From three-way marginal to behind UKIP. Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.


----------



## the button (Dec 19, 2010)

Latest YouGov here: -

http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/today.yougov.co.uk/files/YG-Archives-Pol-ST-results-171210.pdf

* 13% of 18-24s would vote LibDem (as many as that? )
* 1% of Scots think Clegg is doing a very good job 
* Overall, still on 9%


----------



## free spirit (Dec 19, 2010)

analysis of nick cleggs approval rating from that yougov link...

-30% overall approval rating
-27% approval rating with lib dem voters from 2010 election
+54% approval rating from people saying they'd currently intend to vote for the lib dems in an election called tomorrow

comparing his approval rating from 2010 election lib dem voters, 4% say he's doing very well compared to 36% who say he's doing very badly, so his poor approval rating is heavily scewed towards the very badly end of the scale as well.

essentially to me this looks like fairly clear evidence that the loss of 60% of the parties voters from the 2010 election can be firmly laid at Nick Clegg's door.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 19, 2010)

51% expect their households financial situation to get worse over the next 12 months, 74% believe the economic situation in this country is bad, and 58% are less optimistic about the economic situation than they were last christmas.

these are fairly damning statistics, that indicate a collapse in consumer confidence that's almost certain IMO to mean we're heading straight back into recession when combined with the reduction in government spending.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 19, 2010)

> £300k bombproof car to protect Nick Clegg from protesters
> 
> *
> *
> ...



.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 20, 2010)

40/43/8

Coalition approval -18%. Another new low.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 20, 2010)

8?


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 20, 2010)

Libdem/con lead only five points.Also ICM poll as libdems lower than last poll


----------



## Kaye (Dec 20, 2010)

Vince Cable told undercover Daily Telegraph reporters he might leave.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 20, 2010)

Vince Cable thought he was telling one audience what they wanted to hear.


----------



## Kaye (Dec 20, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> Vince Cable thought he was telling one audience what they wanted to hear.


 
Quite. Not gonna help with the remaining 8% though, is it?


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 20, 2010)

Kaye said:


> Quite. Not gonna help with the remaining 8% though, is it?


 
I'm going to crack open a bottle of cheap cava on the day when their poll rating drops low enough to make the entire party a margin of error.


----------



## embree (Dec 21, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> 40/43/8
> 
> Coalition approval -18%. Another new low.


 
Are these YouGov's daily polls for the Sun you're quoting? I'm guessing they are given the frequency of them and the fact that the other organisations have the LDs a little higher usually - though dropping over time all the same.

Edit: just had a look, you are.


----------



## embree (Dec 21, 2010)

ICM/Guardian latest: 37/39/13

UK Polling Report explains the higher LD scores for ICM & Populus thus:



> ICM’s final Guardian poll of the year has topline figures of CON 37%(+1), LAB 39%(+1), LDEM 13%(-1). Changes are from a month ago, but there is no significant change.
> 
> The small Labour lead over the Conservatives is now consistent across all the pollsters – the differences between the different companies remains the Lib Dems and, in some cases the others. ICM normally show the highest level of Lib Dem support, YouGov the lowest – a big chunk of the difference is normally down to the reallocation of don’t knows. ICM and Populus reallocate some of the people who say they don’t know how they’d vote in an election tomorrow to the party they voted for last time, currently this tends to increase the reported level of Lib Dem support by a couple of points since, as you’d expect, there are a significant chunk of Lib Dem voters out there who say they aren’t sure what they’d do in an election.



Whichever way you look at it, it's increasingly grim for them


----------



## Kaye (Dec 21, 2010)

Sgt Howie said:


> I'm going to crack open a bottle of cheap cava on the day when their poll rating drops low enough to make the entire party a margin of error.


 
I'm going to laugh if that happens.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 21, 2010)

It will.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 21, 2010)

It,s best to compare polls from the same company ie yougov,icm.The polls are weighted differently ie dont knows they factor in previous voting intentions.it helps with the voters who are shy of saying that vote for an unpopular party


----------



## embree (Dec 21, 2010)

UK Polling Report's average across recent polls is 39/40/10 for what it's worth


----------



## embree (Dec 21, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> It,s best to compare polls from the same company ie yougov,icm.The polls are weighted differently ie dont knows they factor in previous voting intentions.it helps with the voters who are shy of saying that vote for an unpopular party


 
that's right - and as YouGov are polling more often than the others I think they can skew the 'average' I quote above (not sure how UKPR calculates this average but anyway...) However you do it, the trend is pretty clear at the moment - big two are pretty much level pegging, possibly a small Labour lead, and the Lib Dems are shrivelling away into insignificance.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 21, 2010)

Here's something to cheer us up


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2010)

That latest YG has 4% in Scotland. 

Only 13% _of lib-dems_ think Clegg sticks to what he believes in as well. Obviously he _has_ stuck to the brand of neo-liberal extremism he really does believe in but i think we can read that as near 90% _of lib-dems _thinking that he cannot be trusted.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2010)

Govt approval still heading downwards -19%

40/42/9


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 21, 2010)

The PAPA an average of polls

***PAPA Latest*** 	21/12/2010 	37.4 	40.0 	11.2


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 21, 2010)

New Angus Reid poll too - blimey:

35/41/9


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 22, 2010)




----------



## embree (Dec 22, 2010)

It would seem all the polls are coming into line with YG


----------



## embree (Dec 22, 2010)

In Germany, the FPD are polling 3%, down from 14.5% in the 2009 election. Centre party in coalition with the right...


----------



## grogwilton (Dec 22, 2010)

The FDP have at least always sold them selves as free market liberals, they have always been seen as the natural allies of the tory CDU, and have never been shy about it. The Lib Dems on the other hand...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

Here's the AR leaders approval ratings:

Cameron -7 (-4)
Miliband -8 (-4)
Clegg -28 (-11)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

41/42/8

-19%

Still going down.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Dec 22, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> Still going down.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

Happy as a pig in oh


----------



## embree (Dec 22, 2010)

YouGov/ ITV Wales Poll 22/12/10

Constituency vote (change is since November)
Lab 44% (nc)
PC 21% (nc)
Con 23% (+2)
Lib 6% (-3)
Other 6% (nc)

Regional vote 
Lab 42% (+1)
PC 21% (+1)
Con 22% (+2)
Lib 5% (-4)
UKIP 5% (+1)


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

6 and 5%. Bootifull


----------



## embree (Dec 22, 2010)

Assembly vote is next year isn't it? They'd end up with about three seats if that


----------



## where to (Dec 22, 2010)

That's a wipeout isn't it?  Would be very close to one in Scotland.


----------



## embree (Dec 22, 2010)

where to said:


> That's a wipeout isn't it?  Would be very close to one in Scotland.


 
yeah, the three seats thing is an estimate of their best chance from someone elsewhere. Could be a complete wipeout

It's getting to the stage where their support is so low people who would otherwise vote for them know they won't get in so will switch to someone with a chance of winning


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

I think there will be wipeout in the sw - Laws was the safest, he'll be ok -ish. The rest are totally done by 5000 labour voters walking away - it changes everything.

They took that lib-dem solid vote as theirs for ever, but no, it was always anti-tory. Any lib-dem on the floor could and should have told you that.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 22, 2010)

Nah. Welsh system means they'd get seats on that %, still take a fucking hammering though. Perhaps only get in on regionals.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

**


----------



## embree (Dec 22, 2010)

Proper Tidy said:


> Nah. Welsh system means they'd get seats on that %, still take a fucking hammering though. Perhaps only get in on regionals.


 
shaky even on regionals though, no? They're about to drop below UKIP...


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 22, 2010)

it is Christmas...


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 22, 2010)

A shit one

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/feb/05/wales.devolution1


----------



## Proper Tidy (Dec 22, 2010)

embree said:


> shaky even on regionals though, no? They're about to drop below UKIP...


 
Hopefully!


----------



## Streathamite (Dec 23, 2010)

butchersapron said:


> I think there will be wipeout in the sw - Laws was the safest, he'll be ok -ish. The rest are totally done by 5000 labour voters walking away - it changes everything.
> 
> They took that lib-dem solid vote as theirs for ever, but no, it was always anti-tory. Any lib-dem on the floor could and should have told you that.


I reckon they'll save 2 in the SW, perhaps 2 in west/south west London, one in rural scotland.


----------



## where to (Dec 23, 2010)

*Communists equal with Lib Dems in North Wales:*
http://today.yougov.co.uk/sites/tod...hives-Pol-ITVWales-DecemberPolling-221210.pdf

(3% each)

LOL


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2010)

LOL indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 24, 2010)

Lib-dems produced an internal report this week, called, and i kid you not,  _‘Eight months of solid Lib Dem progress’_


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Dec 24, 2010)

hehe


----------



## Sgt Howie (Dec 26, 2010)

> Support for Britain's first peacetime coalition in 70 years has fallen dramatically since David Cameron and Nick Clegg launched the government in the Downing Street rose garden last May, according to the latest Guardian/ICM poll.
> 
> The poll finds that after six months of Conservative-LibDem rule just 43% think coalition government was the right decision for Britain while 47% now disagree. In May, in answer to a slightly differently worded question, 59% backed the coalition while 32% disagreed with the decision to form it.



Guardian

Even amongst the dwindling band of mugs who still support the Lib Dems, 46% think the coalition was a mistake - that's just one point less than those who still support it.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 28, 2010)

oldham and saddleworth betting
xxxxxxxxxxxlab     ld     con
Ladbrokes 	1/4 	4/1 	14/1
William Hill 	1/6 	9/2 	11/1
Victor Chandler 	1/6 	9/2 	10/1
PaddyPower 	2/11 	10/3 	12/1
Bet365 	1/4 	7/2 	16/1
SkyBet 	2/11 	7/2 	25/1
Betfair 	0.18/1 	5.4/1 	31/1
Smarkets 	1/4 	75/20 	22/1


----------



## ymu (Dec 28, 2010)

shagnasty said:


> oldham and saddleworth betting
> 
> 
> Ladbrokes 	1/4 	4/1 	14/1
> ...


 
Those odds appear to ordered as Labour/Lib Dem/Tory (just to help people make sense of them).


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 28, 2010)

i will edit the post thanks .i was just going back to it


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2011)

What a difference a few weeks make!

40/42/8

App -19.


----------



## killer b (Jan 4, 2011)

are they doing any local polling in oldham?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 4, 2011)

There's a new company on it apparently. See soon enough.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 5, 2011)

Two new records for nicky boy

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20110105/tuk-uk-britain-politics-poll-fa6b408.html



The ratings of its party leader, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who saw his popularity rocket when he outshone his better-known rivals in a series of televised election debates, are at the lowest levels for a third-party leader since 1989.


A "poll of polls" for the Independent newspaper on Wednesday found support for the LibDems had sunk to its lowest level since the party was formed in 1988


----------



## The39thStep (Jan 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> are they doing any local polling in oldham?



Labour are odds on , its a shoe in. Milliband using it as a verdict on the coalition.LOL


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Labour are odds on , its a shoe in. Milliband using it as a verdict on the coalition.LOL


 
Clegg has been doing the 'only the lib-dems can beat labour here' routine


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> Labour are odds on , its a shoe in.


 
i've no doubt about that, i'm just interested in the likely postion of the lib dems.

is it wrong to hope they get less votes than the BNP?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> is it wrong to hope they get less votes than the BNP?



Nope.


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2011)

is there a chance that they could?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Clegg has been doing the 'only the lib-dems can beat labour here' routine


really? fuck me, he's in _denial_


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Complete with Cameron winking and going _'he's right you know'_...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Clegg's already been heckled minutes after arriving in oldham...


----------



## killer b (Jan 5, 2011)

Only heckled? Surely the people of oldham can do better that that?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Jan 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> Only heckled? Surely the people of oldham can do better that that?


 
Wake me up when someone clouts him with a full pisspot.


----------



## little_legs (Jan 5, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> A "poll of polls" for the Independent newspaper on Wednesday found support for the LibDems had sunk to its lowest level since the party was formed in 1988



with this front cover on all news stands today


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Two well chosen side pieces there as well...


----------



## little_legs (Jan 5, 2011)

true that


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 5, 2011)

Lib-dem rat in neath defects to labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2011)

39/43/7



Govt approval -20


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 6, 2011)

7


----------



## Belushi (Jan 6, 2011)

7 lol? They're beginning to lose their core vote.


----------



## embree (Jan 6, 2011)

7!


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 39/43/7
> 
> 
> 
> Govt approval -20



I take it that's COn/Lab/Lib?

Which poll is this from BA?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 6, 2011)

Yep. Yougov daily tracker.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 6, 2011)

I thought 7% is what they would bottom out on but it could go lower


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 6, 2011)

Fuckin'hell..... I don't think anyone expected it to get this bad!!

I hope Clegg likes KFC cos there's a fuck load of chickens coming home to roost.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jan 6, 2011)

Still further to fall.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2011)

Taken from UK polling report:



> Another by-elections of some interest yesterday:
> 
> Witney Town Council – David Cameron’s constituency,
> 
> ...


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 7, 2011)

7% eh? Only 2% off the margin of error. OOO I wait impatiently for the day that a pollster says 'Lib dem support is so low it's within the margin of error'.


----------



## Santino (Jan 7, 2011)

Is the Green Party going to become the home of people who want to register their vote for a party that isn't in government and has no chance of being in government, so they can feel pious and smug about things?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 7, 2011)

Moe is 3% i think.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2011)

7% equals 9 seats apparently.  Nine!  Their worst result for fifty years.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Is the Green Party going to become the home of people who want to register their vote for a party that isn't in government and has no chance of being in government, so they can feel pious and smug about things?


 
I thought that was a natural result of voting for the greens anyway.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 7, 2011)

belboid said:


> 7% equals 9 seats apparently.  Nine!  Their worst result for fifty years.


 
I'd be willing to bet that it would actually translate to no seats at all.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 7, 2011)

Santino said:


> Is the Green Party going to become the home of people who want to register their vote for a party that isn't in government and has no chance of being in government, so they can feel pious and smug about things?


 
Works for me.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2011)

kabbes said:


> I'd be willing to bet that it would actually translate to no seats at all.


 
Naah, four or five almost defintely will remain, Scottish Highland ones, couple of others.  Clegg would probably be safe, if it weren't for the fact that he's Clegg.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 7, 2011)

Honestly, will they still really be getting the 40%+ of votes that they need in any given seat to win that seat?

Even in the South-West, their vote has collapsed below 30%.


----------



## Fedayn (Jan 7, 2011)

belboid said:


> Naah, four or five almost defintely will remain, Scottish Highland ones, couple of others.  Clegg would probably be safe, if it weren't for the fact that he's Clegg.


 
Well the first big test is the Scottish Elections in May. The Lib Dems have 16 MSPs, 11 constituency and 5 frpom the regional list. The quoted bit below is from an SNP tactical voting blog.... Makes for interesting reading.



> I had thought that during the term of this Parliament the Lib Dems might find a narrative of being the reasonable partners in an unpopular coalition but on last night's evidence it will be a tough needle to thread. I am finally beginning to wonder just how hard the Lib Dems will be hit in next year's election and, only somewhat mischievouly, is it worth considering if they could be wiped out entirely?
> 
> The Liberal Democrats hold 11 First Past the Post seats with Dunfermline West (maj 1.6%), Tweeddale, Ettrick & Lauderdale (maj 2.0%), Edinburgh South (maj 5.9%), Aberdeen South (maj 9.1%), and Ross, Skye & Inverness West (maj 11%) amongst the most vulnerable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 7, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Honestly, will they still really be getting the 40%+ of votes that they need in any given seat to win that seat?


yes, simply because so many have a HUGE personal vote owing to lib dem MPs being brilliant constituency 'n' community politics types, and cos there are no depths to which LD electoral campaign teams will not sink to get votes. This explains how Simon Hughes first became an MP, how he has kept  what should be an uber-safe Labour seat all these years - and why he'll probably keep that seat next time round.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 7, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Taken from UK polling report:
> 
> 
> > Another by-elections of some interest yesterday:
> ...


in WITNEY??? F-ing holy shitting hell.
I grant you it's only a council ward, turnout probably v poor, but even so that is astonishing. 
I always assumed that If Gary Glitter or Ian Huntley stood in that locality for the tories, they'd get in. It's soooo tory it makes you puke.


----------



## belboid (Jan 7, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> yes, simply because so many have a HUGE personal vote owing to lib dem MPs being brilliant constituency 'n' community politics types, and cos there are no depths to which LD electoral campaign teams will not sink to get votes. This explains how Simon Hughes first became an MP, how he has kept  what should be an uber-safe Labour seat all these years - and why he'll probably keep that seat next time round.



It certainly doesn't explain how the hypocritical scumbag _first_ became an MP.  Although his most recent actions do mirror that vile hypocrisy rather nicely.

Just under 10% swing to Labour required to lose him his seat.  Polls indicating a bigger swing than that at the moment.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 7, 2011)

Angus Reid

con 35 lab 40 ldem 12

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/

according to that link one maybe two weekend polls for Oldham and Saddleworth


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2011)

Sunday Telegraph apparently has this for Oldham

LAB: 46
LIBDEM:29
CON:15

Actual result last time was:

Labour:31.86%
Liberal Democrat:31.63%
Conservative:26.44%

Tories piling onto the lib-dems to prop them up - even with both votes together they wouldn't win. Suspect as the result becomes clear that lib-dem vote will drop as the tories pile back out.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 8, 2011)

As i say that, two more Oldham ones come in, so now it looks like this:

*ICM * 
CON 18%(-8)
LAB 44%(+12)
LDEM 27%(-5)

*Populus* 
CON 15%(-11)
LAB 46%(+14)
LDEM 29(-3)

*Ashcroft/Telegraph*
CON15 (-11)
LAB 46 (+14)
LIBDEM 29 (-3)

Labour have it in the bag, tories propping up lib-dems - for now...


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> As i say that, two more Oldham ones come in, so now it looks like this:
> 
> *ICM *
> CON 18%(-8)
> ...



It has to be said though that the LD vote is holding up remarkably well in all these polls (compared to the general trend of national polls). As you say this is likely to be con voters backing the LD as the anti-labour candidate (the poll shows that 77% of tories would vote for a coalition candidate if that's what they were offered). All the same, predictions of LD meltdown may be on hold for a while. It'll be interesting to see how long tory voters will go on backing up the LD candidate, or whether they will do so at all elsewhere.


----------



## ymu (Jan 10, 2011)

co-op said:


> It has to be said though that the LD vote is holding up remarkably well in all these polls (compared to the general trend of national polls). As you say this is likely to be con voters backing the LD as the anti-labour candidate (the poll shows that 77% of tories would vote for a coalition candidate if that's what they were offered). All the same, predictions of LD meltdown may be on hold for a while. It'll be interesting to see how long tory voters will go on backing up the LD candidate, or whether they will do so at all elsewhere.


That is probably a large part of it, but the LDs had more support there at the last election than they did nationally (on average), so you'd expect their vote % to still be higher there than it is nationally. Also, Labour was the LD's main rival at the election, which means that a lot of the LD votes are anti-Labour, pro-Tory or from-the-right-of-the-party votes, so you wouldn't expect as many of these to have disappeared as have nationally (on average).


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

That said, if you remove the 1/3 of tories now tactically supporting them (a figure i think will drop) you have them down in the mid-teens in one of their strongest areas without a lib-dem MP. They won't elect anyone on those figures anywhere.


----------



## ymu (Jan 10, 2011)

Oh yes, I'm not arguing that their figures look good - quite the opposite.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

That was reply to the post above yours - didn't notice your one was posted in between.


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That said, if you remove the 1/3 of tories now tactically supporting them (a figure i think will drop) you have them down in the mid-teens in one of their strongest areas without a lib-dem MP. They won't elect anyone on those figures anywhere.



I'm really intrigued by this tory vote; it looks a lot like they are responsible for the LD vote holding up in O&S - but why do you think this group will drop? One of the features of English politics to me is the intensely pragmatic nature of the right - and it looks like the tory voters of Oldham are going LD in substantial numbers despite all the frothing of the more ideologically pure tory press who have made clear their opposition to any idea of coalition candidates. If this kind of tory tactical voting is replicated nationally, there are a lot of LDs who will benefit.

Not saying this will happen, but it appears to be happening in Oldham and I don't see especially why it won't elsewhere.


----------



## Santino (Jan 10, 2011)

It remains to be seen whether people reporting Lib Dem support will actually put a cross in the right box. Huge polling in the General Election didn't translate into votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

co-op said:


> I'm really intrigued by this tory vote; it looks a lot like they are responsible for the LD vote holding up in O&S - but why do you think this group will drop? One of the features of English politics to me is the intensely pragmatic nature of the right - and it looks like the tory voters of Oldham are going LD in substantial numbers despite all the frothing of the more ideologically pure tory press who have made clear their opposition to any idea of coalition candidates. If this kind of tory tactical voting is replicated nationally, there are a lot of LDs who will benefit.
> 
> Not saying this will happen, but it appears to be happening in Oldham and I don't see especially why it won't elsewhere.



One off, they see the need to try and prop up the lib-dems in this particular seat at this particular time even at the expense of their own not unsizable vote. It's pretty clear that it's not worked now so i expect they'll either switch back or stay at home. In a general election in a three-way marginal with a close national vote expected i see no way on earth they'd be prepared to do the same - oldhma or otherwise. 

And those tories who are/were prepared to this on a keep labour out basis have been doing this already - they're _already_ counted in that lib-dem vote - there's not really much chance for an _expansion_ of this vote in key seats. You're correct that the tory vote is pragmatic, but it's been pragmatic already and this - where we are today - is all it's managed to deliver.


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> One off, they see the need to try and prop up the lib-dems in this particular seat at this particular time even at the expense of their own not unsizable vote. It's pretty clear that it's not worked now so i expect they'll either switch back or stay at home. In a general election in a three-way marginal with a close national vote expected i see no way on earth they'd be prepared to do the same - oldhma or otherwise.



Well I guess we'll see on Thursday what they'll actually do. But i would never expect tory voters to go LD in the "3 way marginals" you talk of; why would they?, there's everything to gain in voting tory in those circs. I'm talking about cases where it's a clear run-off between labour and the LDs. I'm not saying it will happen, just that what evidence we have from O&S is that this seems to be happening there.



butchersapron said:


> And those tories who are/were prepared to this on a keep labour out basis have been doing this already - they're _already_ counted in that lib-dem vote - there's not really much chance for an _expansion_ of this vote in key seats. You're correct that the tory vote is pragmatic, but it's been pragmatic already and this - where we are today - is all it's managed to deliver.


 
I wouldn't have thought many tories were voting LD tactically in May 2010 - didn't most people expect that the LDs were closer to Labour than the Cons? I would have certainly thought most tories would have assumed so (and of course a mighty great chunk of the LD vote who consider themselves royally betrayed). Now that Clegg has nailed the LD colours so firmly to the tory mast we have every prospect of a de facto grass roots tory tactical voting phenomenon I'd think - much like the anti-tory one that spontaneously sprung up in 97.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

That's my point - those who would tactically vote lib-dem to stop labour already did so. There's no room for an expansion of that vote as it already exists to its effective limit.


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> That's my point - those who would tactically vote lib-dem to stop labour already did so. There's no room for an expansion of that vote as it already exists to its effective limit.



I see little scope for tactical voting having already taken place (why would a tory have voted LD in May 2010?) - but a lot of scope for tory voters to now start doing this, knowing that they are in effect voting tory when they back the LD candidate in a LD vs Labour run-off.

And - as I have said - the opinion polls in O&S appear to be bearing this out. Whether this turns into a genuine phenomenon (ie actually happens on the day and then generalises to other elections) we shall see.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

co-op said:


> I see little scope for tactical voting having already taken place (why would a tory have voted LD in May 2010?) - but a lot of scope for tory voters to now start doing this, knowing that they are in effect voting tory when they back the LD candidate in a LD vs Labour run-off.
> 
> And - as I have said - the opinion polls in O&S appear to be bearing this out. Whether this turns into a genuine phenomenon (ie actually happens on the day and then generalises to other elections) we shall see.



To stop labour getting in! There's a long long history of tactical voting - as you seemed to acknowledge in your earlier post about the pragmatic nature of the british electoral right. They've _always_ done it - and they've always done it in seats where it's potentially effective. That's why the results it could achieve have by and large _been achieved_. (And it's one of the reasons that the lib-dem vote is soft - labour and tory tactical voters making up a substantial section of it). If there's a chance of the tory winning they'll vote tory. If not they'll vote to stop labour. There's not suddenly a new lot of seats where this is the case. It's the same seats in which tactical voting has always gone on (talking of the tory votes here, not labour tactical voters).


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> To stop labour getting in! There's a long long history of tactical voting - as you seemed to acknowledge in your earlier post about the pragmatic nature of the british electoral right. They've _always_ done it - and they've always done it in seats where it's potentially effective. That's why the results it could achieve have by and large _been achieved_. (And it's one of the reasons that the lib-dem vote is soft - labour and tory tactical voters making up a substantial section of it). If there's a chance of the tory winning they'll vote tory. If not they'll vote to stop labour. There's not suddenly a new lot of seats where this is the case. It's the same seats in which tactical voting has always gone on (talking of the tory votes here, not labour tactical voters).



So - if you are right and large chunks of the tory electorate are already seasoned anti-labour, pro-LD tactical voters (which I doubt, because the LDs/Libs have historically been far closer to labour), how do you explain the O&S data?

It shows a jump in the labour vote - we assume from disgruntled LD voters - a collapse in the tory vote and the LD vote holding up surprisingly well, certainly far better than the national polls would predict. It looks a lot like two things to me; (a) that tory voters have gone over to the LD candidate in large numbers and (b) that this is a new phenomenon, ie they didn't do this in May this year or previously.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 10, 2011)

co-op said:


> So - if you are right and large chunks of the tory electorate are already seasoned anti-labour, pro-LD tactical voters (which I doubt, because the LDs/Libs have historically been far closer to labour), how do you explain the O&S data?
> 
> It shows a jump in the labour vote - we assume from disgruntled LD voters - a collapse in the tory vote and the LD vote holding up surprisingly well, certainly far better than the national polls would predict. It looks a lot like two things to me; (a) that tory voters have gone over to the LD candidate in large numbers and (b) that this is a new phenomenon, ie they didn't do this in May this year or previously.



I didn't say a large section of the tory vote but a section of the tory vote _in those seats where a tactical lib-dem vote was potentially effective._. That's a handful, by definition less than 57 and probably about 10-20 tops. That the lib-dems and labour were historically seen as closer than the lib-dems and the tories is neither here nor there. They were/are never going to gain an overall majority but they can/could stop labour gaining an overall majority - and that's what these tactical votes were based on, not closeness of manifestos or actual principles. I'm more than little baffled that this utterly accepted part of historical electoral behaviour is being questioned.

As for Oldham, there's very little to explain - 1/3 of lib-dems have jumped straight over to labour, and a 1/3 of tories are saying they've gone lib-dem. This explains the labour boost (allied with the return of labour boycotters), the tory drop and the smaller drop in lib-dem support. It's tallies exactly with my explanation that the tories will do this this time in this particular seat thorough a wider motivation of propping the coalition, but that they won't and didn't in the general election. It's exactly as my argument says.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 10, 2011)

co-op said:


> (b) that this is a new phenomenon, ie they didn't do this in May this year or previously.


hardly surprising, voters tend to behave differently in by-elections than they do in GEs, and this is the first Old & sad by-elecxtion for a long, long while, and also this is gthe first big-deal election sincve the coalition was formed


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> . It's exactly as my argument says.






Ok, I get that this is the important thing.


----------



## co-op (Jan 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> hardly surprising, voters tend to behave differently in by-elections than they do in GEs, and this is the first Old & sad by-elecxtion for a long, long while, and also this is gthe first big-deal election sincve the coalition was formed



Yep voters behave differently in bys than in generals. And in this case a section of them - ie a large chunk of the tory vote - appear to be voting LD. That would appear to be because of the coalition govt, right? Interesting phenomenon, perhaps?


----------



## where to (Jan 10, 2011)

> Latest YouGov/Sun voting intention CON 40%, LAB 43%, LDEM 8%



- - - - - - - -



> *Labour are now 8 points ahead of the Tories**, according to a ComRes poll for tomorrow's Independent*. The polling firm have Labour on 42%(+3 since December 19th) and the Conservatives on 34%(-3). The Liberal Democrats on 12% (slightly higher than in recent polls) and have increased their vote share by 1%.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 11, 2011)

For a long time the tory vote has been unscathed and only the libs have suffered .that poll for com res show it differently


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 11, 2011)

The petrol price is going to damage the tories with thier base.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2011)

Interesting indication from the latest YG tables(pdf) that Clegg and his Orange bookers have so hollowed out their party of left or trad liberal support that they're now down to almost the genuine right-wingers alone - that 8% support is pretty clearly largely right wing. 51% of them would prefer a tory govt led by cameron to 16% who'd prefer a labour govt in a head to head fight. And that right wing vote is always going to be in danger of moving across to the most successful right wing party in electoral history...


----------



## Santino (Jan 11, 2011)

I wonder if the Yellow Tories have the same demographic profile as Blue Tories, i.e. aging and dying out.


----------



## creak (Jan 11, 2011)

My perception has always been that the more right-wing LibDems are largely the younger, studenty free marketeers who have embraced neoliberal economics but don't want the old-school Tory baggage over 'social' issues; homosexuality, race, abortion etc. People like moon23, for example.


----------



## Santino (Jan 11, 2011)

creak said:


> My perception has always been that the more right-wing LibDems are largely the younger, studenty free marketeers who have embraced neoliberal economics but don't want the old-school Tory baggage over 'social' issues; homosexuality, race, abortion etc. People like moon23, for example.


----------



## little_legs (Jan 11, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> For a long time the tory vote has been unscathed and only the libs have suffered .that poll for com res show it differently


 
The piece in the Indy claims that although Labour has pulled ahead, they really have nothing to be cheerful about. Poor stupid Clegg, his supporters are running away. 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ins-as-labour-pull-ahead-in-poll-2181115.html


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 11, 2011)

little_legs said:


> The piece in the Indy claims that although Labour has pulled ahead, they really have nothing to be cheerful about. Poor stupid Clegg, his supporters are running away.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ins-as-labour-pull-ahead-in-poll-2181115.html


 
That's such a hideous website, I can barely read it.


----------



## little_legs (Jan 11, 2011)

i know exactly what you mean


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 11, 2011)

creak said:


> My perception has always been that the more right-wing LibDems are largely the younger, studenty free marketeers who have embraced neoliberal economics but don't want the old-school Tory baggage over 'social' issues; homosexuality, race, abortion etc. People like moon23, for example.


which makes them almost perfect material for the sort of tory party the Cameroons want; economically rightwing, pretend to care about the poor but don't really, imepccably elightened on issues of gender, race, sexuality etc, and willing to bang the green drum all night long. Really, the only big issue that still divides them is Europe


----------



## kabbes (Jan 11, 2011)

The Tories have surely, by now, stopped even pretending that they care about the poor, haven't they?


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 11, 2011)

belboid said:


> It certainly doesn't explain how the hypocritical scumbag _first_ became an MP.  Although his most recent actions do mirror that vile hypocrisy rather nicely.


well, this bit does; 


> there are no depths to which LD electoral campaign teams will not sink to get votes.


i left it at that, because I find it difficult to think about that by-election without going wild with rage, and because I thought that would suffice.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jan 11, 2011)

If the Lib Dems stay around 7-8% up until the weekend can we refresh the thread title again please?


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 11, 2011)

What makes me smile a little is how supremely slippery the Etonians are (and, fwiw, always have been). After all the talk of cuts and student protesting and everything else, they're down a mighty 2% on the General Election - LibDems taking just about the whole hit for them.

They're also now avoiding the burden of most substantial cuts by hitting local government  biggest - it'll be local officials who take that hit for them.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2011)

That's the plan - it won't work though. It doesn't take great brains to connect the local to the national - as the local election results since the general election have shown.


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 11, 2011)

Yep, I probably agree but, until this last poll, they were actually up 1% on the General Election. LOL. (((Nick)))


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 11, 2011)

According to the Indy article, Lab even have a 1% lead among the AB group. That's something telling.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> They're also now avoiding the burden of most substantial cuts by hitting local government  biggest - it'll be local officials who take that hit for them.


not necessarily. I can only speak for Haringey and Waltham forest but out canvassing and leafletting, I get the strong impression people are well aware this is central govt doing that the councils are powerless about. Haringey are condemned for their usual spinelessness in not fighting the cuts, but they're not blamed for causing them.
e2a: GAAH! just seen BA's #928.


----------



## belboid (Jan 11, 2011)

London_Calling said:


> Yep, I probably agree but, until this last poll, they were actually up 1% on the General Election. LOL. (((Nick)))


 
that does indicate a not insignificant loss of people who voted for them in May. They'll have picked up a few points from lib-dems who dont see the point in voting for the monkey


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 11, 2011)

40/41/7

Coalition approval -18


----------



## London_Calling (Jan 12, 2011)

Etonians up 4% on the General Election. LOL

btw, there was  insightful analysis plus Q&A of the GE on the Parliament Channel - it was on endlessly over New Year - called something snappy like 'The General Election 2010'. Bound to come up again.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 12, 2011)

> called something snappy like 'The General Election 2010'. Bound to come up again.



Sometimes those production types really earn their money for being creative, eh?


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 12, 2011)

On the point of local cuts being linked to national - some councils are making that explicit - there are posters round sunny St.Ockwell and the rest of Lambeth pointing this out. Not that the uber New Labourites of Lambeth were planning any especially different even if they had got in nationally mind. 

As for the Tory vote going up after the election - isn't there a historical trend for the Tory vote to be underestimated because people are ashamed to admit it - once they're in government maybe some people feel more able to admit they voted that way (maybe not so much now). That plus the odd Lib Dem voter returning to their natural home might explain it, although those percentage points are probably still well within margins of error.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 12, 2011)

lagtbd said:


> On the point of local cuts being linked to national - some councils are making that explicit - there are posters round sunny St.Ockwell and the rest of Lambeth pointing this out. Not that the uber New Labourites of Lambeth were planning any especially different even if they had got in nationally mind.
> 
> As for the Tory vote going up after the election - isn't there a historical trend for the Tory vote to be underestimated because people are ashamed to admit it - once they're in government maybe some people feel more able to admit they voted that way (maybe not so much now). That plus the odd Lib Dem voter returning to their natural home might explain it, although those percentage points are probably still well within margins of error.


all these are valid, but a likelier explanation for the rise is all those centre-right voters who wanted to vote for a capitalist party and still feel good about themselves. These types are all now saying 'may as well vote tory anyway, they're the same thing'.
roughly as belboid has said above


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 12, 2011)

Just thinking soon you be able to predict the libdem rating with single dice  1 to 6


----------



## OneStrike (Jan 12, 2011)

According to political pundits on twitter, today was the first time since 97 that no lib had a question during pmq's, a sign that there issue is with the leadership perhaps?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

Cowards


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jan 12, 2011)

YouGov - 36/43/9

Tories starting to take a hit?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2011)

If yg say it then it's moving...


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 13, 2011)

And for those pricks who like to add libdem and con ratings together the diference is just two percentage points


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Jan 13, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> And for those pricks who like to add libdem and con ratings together the diference is just two percentage points


 
But in terms of seats, Labour would be well ahead.

In fact, using the BBC's (fairly basic) seat calculator  from last year- 36/43/9 would translate to Cons 218, Labour 387, Libs 18, Others 27.

Although - this current YouGov poll is probably a bit of an outlier. I don't think the Labour lead is quite that big at the moment (and neither do YouGov).


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 15, 2011)

You guv

Con 37% lab 43% libdem 9%

government approv -22%

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


----------



## little_legs (Jan 16, 2011)

from the Sun Times, Jan 16: 



> ED MILIBAND is now more popular than Nick Clegg among voters who had backed the Liberal Democrats at the last general election.
> 
> Lib Dem fortunes have plunged to such depths after eight months of coalition government that 41% of men and women who voted for the party last May would today back Labour at the ballot box. Just one-third said they would stick with Clegg.





> Among all voters Labour is on 43%, giving the party a solid six-point lead over the Conservatives on 37%. The Lib Dems languish on 9%.





> Today's poll is particularly damning of Clegg, with 63% of Lib Dem supporters at the 2010 election saying he is doing badly as party leader and 67% saying he cannot be trusted to keep his promises.





> Voters of all persuasions are also scathing about the Lib Dems' influence around the coalition cabinet table: 58% believe they have little or no influence at all in the Torydominated administration.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 16, 2011)

> ED MILIBAND is now more popular than Nick Clegg among voters who had backed the Liberal Democrats at the last general election.


Damned with the faintest of praise surely.


----------



## killer b (Jan 16, 2011)

you could replace 'ed miliband' with almost anything, and that statement would still be true.



> genital herpes is now more popular than Nick Clegg among voters who had backed the Liberal Democrats at the last general election.





> Ian Huntley is now more popular than Nick Clegg among voters who had backed the Liberal Democrats at the last general election.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 16, 2011)




----------



## audiotech (Jan 18, 2011)




----------



## Crispy (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm going to give this thread a more straightforward title: LibDem Pollwatch - 10% and falling
Objections?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2011)

Call them shit as well. Also 9/8% is now more accurate.


----------



## JimW (Jan 18, 2011)

Any figure's a hostage to fortune, and let's all hope we've not hit bottom yet. So, 'Lib Dems - How Low Can They Go?', which gets the party ethic nicely too.


----------



## kabbes (Jan 18, 2011)

Now we see the JACKBOOT of the moderator.


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 18, 2011)

audiotech said:


>


I like that!


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 18, 2011)

kabbes said:


> Now we see the JACKBOOT of the moderator.


ooh yeah, crispy's _sooo_ authoritarian....


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2011)

Lib-dem vote collapses in Scotland



> Support for the Liberal Democrats in Scotland has fallen by more than half since the last Holyrood elections as the party faces a public backlash in the wake of tough Coalition decisions on the economy at Westminster.
> 
> In a sign its vote is collapsing in the run-up to May’s poll, the party’s public opinion ratings have fallen by five percentage points over the last five months.
> 
> The results of a TNS-BMRC poll today reveal the LibDem share of the constituency vote has also more than halved since the 2007 poll.



What i want to know, is why the SNP are doing so well considering they're forcing through unneeded cuts and effectively sacking 125 000 people (65 000 directly)?


----------



## Plumdaff (Jan 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dem vote collapses in Scotland
> 
> What i want to know, is why the SNP are doing so well considering they're forcing through unneeded cuts and effectively sacking 125 000 people (65 000 directly)?


 
They're not doing that well - 16% below Labour. I don't agree with this, but maybe the perception is that these are Westminster cuts, despite Salmond's "let's be another Ireland" neo liberal hubris? 
If I were in Scotland I'd certainly be feeling a bit more nationalist at the prospect of another Tory government my country didn't vote for.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2011)

lagtbd said:


> They're not doing that well - 16% below Labour. I don't agree with this, but maybe the perception is that these are Westminster cuts, despite Salmond's "let's be another Ireland" neo liberal hubris?
> If I were in Scotland I'd certainly be feeling a bit more nationalist at the prospect of another Tory government my country didn't vote for.


 
They're doing very well considering and their polling has actually gone up over the last 6 months. They're within spitting distance of their performance last time round. Part of the nationalist vote will surely be on anti-cuts and sackings so will got to labour. Looks to me like the tories are propping up the SNP rather than anti-tories flooding into them.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 18, 2011)

JimW said:


> Any figure's a hostage to fortune, and let's all hope we've not hit bottom yet. So, 'Lib Dems - How Low Can They Go?', which gets the party ethic nicely too.


This is a good idea


----------



## Crispy (Jan 18, 2011)

I am swung by that too


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 18, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Lib-dem vote collapses in Scotland
> 
> 
> 
> What i want to know, is why the SNP are doing so well considering they're forcing through unneeded cuts and effectively sacking 125 000 people (65 000 directly)?



Same reason Labour are doing so well in the North East despite Labour councils implementing the deepest cuts, they have successfully blamed it on the Coalition.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jan 18, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Same reason Labour are doing so well in the North East despite Labour councils implementing the deepest cuts, they have successfully blamed it on the Coalition.


But there's a difference, in the NE any anti-coalition votes don't really have anywhere to go apart from Labour. In Scotland the SNP can't say the same.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 18, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Same reason Labour are doing so well in the North East despite Labour councils implementing the deepest cuts, they have successfully blamed it on the Coalition.


 
So they vote labour (up fuclloads) - whose doing the cuts - snp (tories down fuck loads)


----------



## Bear (Jan 18, 2011)

I'm hoping the LimpDicks lose most of their deposits in the Holyrood Elections...


----------



## weepiper (Jan 19, 2011)

this says it all really...


----------



## Sgt Howie (Jan 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They're doing very well considering and their polling has actually gone up over the last 6 months. They're within spitting distance of their performance last time round. Part of the nationalist vote will surely be on anti-cuts and sackings so will got to labour. Looks to me like the tories are propping up the SNP rather than anti-tories flooding into them.


 
Well, that's always been the case with the SNP - look where their core vote is concentrated.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 19, 2011)

It's great that 8% (today/last night - 39/44/8) is now not worthy of comment..it's expected...


----------



## embree (Jan 20, 2011)

TNS/BRMB Scottish Parliament poll:

Holyrood Constituency: CON 9%, LAB 49%, LDEM 7%, SNP 33%
Holyrood Regional: CON 9%, LAB 47%, LDEM 7%, SNP 33%, GRN 3%


----------



## weepiper (Jan 20, 2011)

embree said:


> TNS/BRMB Scottish Parliament poll:
> 
> Holyrood Constituency: CON 9%, LAB 49%, LDEM 7%, SNP 33%
> Holyrood Regional: CON 9%, LAB 47%, LDEM 7%, SNP 33%, GRN 3%


 
ouch


----------



## killer b (Jan 20, 2011)

I've a cousin who works for the scottish lib dems. She said at xmas it's looking like time for her to move on...


----------



## weepiper (Jan 20, 2011)

killer b said:


> I've a cousin who works for the scottish lib dems. She said at xmas it's looking like time for her to move on...


 
my mum has been a Scottish lib dem for years and years and has worked for them as a councillor's PA and an MSP's PA and has done general party footwork for ages. Even she says they're going to get humped in this election.


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 20, 2011)

CON 36%, LAB 43%, LDEM 10%

government approv -22%

slight widening


----------



## Streathamite (Jan 21, 2011)

weepiper said:


> my mum has been a Scottish lib dem for years and years and has worked for them as a councillor's PA and an MSP's PA and has done general party footwork for ages. Even she says they're going to get humped in this election.


christ, these must be tough times for your poor ma


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2011)

Some detailed YG commentary on the lib-dems piss poor polling:



> In the same poll for the Sunday Times, we asked respondents [i.e lib-dems, not all voters]how much they trusted each of the main party leaders to keep their promises. Disillusioned Lib Dem voters say that they have more trust in Ed Miliband and David Cameron than in Nick Clegg. A huge 80% of this group has little or no trust in Clegg to keep his promises. Cameron came a close second, with 76% saying they do not trust him. Miliband fared the best of the three main party leaders with 32% saying they trust him a great deal or to some extent, and 50% saying they do not trust him at all.



More


----------



## nino_savatte (Jan 21, 2011)

embree said:


> TNS/BRMB Scottish Parliament poll:
> 
> Holyrood Constituency: CON 9%, LAB 49%, LDEM 7%, SNP 33%
> Holyrood Regional: CON 9%, LAB 47%, LDEM 7%, SNP 33%, GRN 3%


 
Brilliant!


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 22, 2011)

More indications of a lib-dem wipe-out in the urban area:

Manchester MBC, Baguley 

Lab 996 (70.8; *+23.8*)
Con 160 (11.4; -4.8)
UKIP 76 (5.4; -1.4)
LD Yvonne Donaghey *52* (3.7; *-20.8*)

Solihull MBC, Olton 

LD Claire Louise O'Kane 1188 (39.7;* -11.0*)
Con 1179 (39.4; +5.7)
Lab 280 (9.4; +1.8)
Solihull and Meriden Residents Association 228 (7.6; +6.3)

Two others:

Conwy CBC, Marl

LD Sue Shotter 389 (40.4; *-10.1*)
Con 270 (28.1; +5.7)
Lab 216 (22.5; *+14.2*)

Kent CC, Tonbridge

Con 3229 (56.6; +9.3)
Lab 1216 (21.3; *+11.9*)
LD Garry Christopher Bridge 561 (9.8; *-5.9*)
Green 366 (6.4; -3.8)


----------



## little_legs (Jan 30, 2011)

No party approval ratings in the Sunday Times today. I am guessing Condom Face and Bumnose Gideon are not doing that well. 

Nevertheless, here are some results from the ST latest YouGov survey (Source: The Sunday Times): 

YouGov survey of 2,234 adults, January 27-28



> How do you think your financial situation will change over the next 12 months?
> Get better 7%
> Get worse 63%
> Stay the same 26%
> ...





> Should the government stick to its plan for spending cuts?
> Yes 36%
> No, change course 36%
> Don't know 28%
> ...





> Six out of 10 people believe the Met should be allocating resources to investigate the hacking affair, according to a YouGov poll for The Sunday Times. Some 71% said it would never be acceptable for a journalist to hack into an individual's voicemail.





> 71% of people are opposed to the government's plans to sell off huge areas of woodland to private buyers.



Finally, Ed Miliband writes in today's Sunday Times: 



> On the Scottish Lib Dem website is a campaign against privatisation in Scotland, called Save our Forests!. "The Liberal Democrats working with environmental organisations have won the case," it boasts beneath a picture of Nick Clegg . Which principle is there that applies in Scotland but not in England?



This is the image of the site he is referring to:


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 30, 2011)




----------



## killer b (Jan 30, 2011)

the scottish lib dems are irrelevant... in a few months time, they'll have as much political clout as peter dow.


----------



## little_legs (Jan 30, 2011)

that danny alexander used to be a woodman apparently


----------



## ericjarvis (Jan 30, 2011)

little_legs said:


> that danny alexander used to be a woodman apparently


 
Looks entirely plastic to me.


----------



## kyser_soze (Jan 31, 2011)

Looks like a discharge-drippping cunt to me.


----------



## claphamboy (Feb 1, 2011)

killer b said:


> the scottish lib dems are irrelevant... in a few months time, they'll have as much political clout as peter dow.


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2011)

Two lib dem cllrs leave in protest against coalition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-12351322

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/...-stockport-as-cracks-show-on-lib-dem-council/


----------



## trevhagl (Feb 3, 2011)

little_legs said:


> that danny alexander used to be a woodman apparently


 
what a stand in for a porn actor?


----------



## co-op (Feb 3, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> More indications of a lib-dem wipe-out in the urban area:
> 
> Manchester MBC, Baguley
> 
> ...




Christ that's what I call a proper collapse, the Lib-Dems got 1178 votes just 9 months ago, now they get 52.

Even allowing for the usual pathetic turnout in council by elections (went from 44% to 12 % in this one) that is really, really bad.


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 3, 2011)

Latest YouGov/Sun results 3rd Feb CON 37%, LAB 44%, LD 9%; APP -26


http://today.yougov.co.uk/


----------



## The39thStep (Feb 3, 2011)

Third Lib Dem resigns in Stockport. 

All being called independents but have applied to join Labour party ( or in two of their cases re-joining Labour)


----------



## shagnasty (Feb 16, 2011)

The latest 

Latest YouGov/Sun results 16th Feb CON 35%, LAB 45%, LD 10%; APP -26

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/a...paign=Feed:+PollingReport+(UK+Polling+Report)


----------



## samiam (Feb 16, 2011)

they can go awhile


----------



## killer b (Feb 16, 2011)

labour on the combined polls of the two govt parties... that's the first time it's hit that isn't it?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 17, 2011)

Happened quite a lot recently - they've been ahead of them too.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 27, 2011)

An indication of how low a small party that props up a a cutting govt va actually go  has just been given by the Green results the Irish elections - wiped out. And the lib-dems have been doing more than propping up...they'll get a hefty bit of the -24% stick that FF got hit with too


----------



## Sgt Howie (Feb 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> An indication of how low a small party that props up a a cutting govt va actually go  has just been given by the Green results the Irish elections - wiped out. And the lib-dems have been doing more than propping up...they'll get a hefty bit of the -24% stick that FF got hit with too


 
Off topic but exactly the same fate is now being set in stone for the Irish Labour party. Round and round and round we go.


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2011)

They seem to have stalled on a disapointing 10%. This needs sorting out... Do they have any major manifesto pledges left to make a humiliating u-turn on?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2011)

Maybe Nick Clegg could turn out to be a paedo.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2011)

Not that unlikely, he does look like one.


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2011)

i considered reading the manifesto to see what was left, but couldn't even get past the front page without wanting to stab my eyes out.

the four key pledges on the cover: 



> fair taxes
> that put money back in your pocket
> 
> a fair future
> ...



they aren't doing well, are they?


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2011)

How likely it that the Lib Dems will have no seats the next election?


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2011)

something to aim for, but sadly very unlikely.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2011)

I'm just wondering what the odds are so that when the election is announced I can take a bet on it.


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2011)

you'd probably get excellent odds, but only because it's not going to happen.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2011)

ok what about the odds on one seat?


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2011)

i can't find anyone offering odds atm. i think you'd be best spending your money on stamps to send turds to nick clegg's office.


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 28, 2011)

The odds on the av referendum are 1.83 either way. I agree btw


----------



## claphamboy (Feb 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> i can't find anyone offering odds atm. i think you'd be best spending your money on stamps to send turds to nick clegg's office.


 
Why waste money on stamps?

Just fucking send them, and let them pay the postage.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> An indication of how low a small party that props up a a cutting govt va actually go  has just been given by the Green results the Irish elections - wiped out. And the lib-dems have been doing more than propping up...they'll get a hefty bit of the -24% stick that FF got hit with too


 
Which goes to show that a favourable voting system won't help you if everyone hates you.  AV wouldn't safe the LDs either.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2011)

It would allow_ the tories_ to save them - and for the lib-dems to return the favour where they can. That's the whole point of preferences - as you've just spend a thousand post ineptly arguing.


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2011)

oy. you've already got two threads for this.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2011)

sorry one last pop - But if the Tories are also in freefall (like FF) they can't protect the LDs (like the Irish Greens).  So it wouldn't happen.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 28, 2011)

And one last one from me - you've also spent the last thousand posts arguing that the tories *are not* in free fall and in such a strong position that even without AV they will win an outright majority. You can't even keep your story straight.

*Ends*


----------



## killer b (Feb 28, 2011)

YouGov/Sunday Times results 25th-27th Feb CON 36%, LAB 44%, LD 10%; APPROVAL -25



not much movement anywhere for a month now.


----------



## articul8 (Feb 28, 2011)

I'm making no predictions -  if they're not in freefall, it goes to show how important AV could be in depriving them of a majority.  If they *are* in freefall, then they can't protect the LDs.  Whichever is true, result is good.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

killer b said:


> i can't find anyone offering odds atm. i think you'd be best spending your money on stamps to send turds to nick clegg's office.


 
That will be nice for his staff


----------



## JimW (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> That will be nice for his staff


 
Probably no group of people with more experience of handling turds than Nick Clegg's staff.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> That will be nice for his staff


 
Which would you rather have the excitement of a turd through the letter box, or the tedium of a walk through a Forestry Commision plantation?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Which would you rather have the excitement of a turd through the letter box, or the tedium of a walk through a Forestry Commision plantation?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
I think you have to be pretty twisted to enjoy walking through a Forestry Commision plantation or to post shit to someone working in an MPs office.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

You have to be pretty twisted to enjoy being a lib-dem activist. Not only shafting the public but lying to their faces over why it is necessary.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

Sadism and masochism at the same time ..


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> *I think you have to be pretty twisted to enjoy walking through a Forestry Commision plantation* or to post shit to someone working in an MPs office.









Just confirms your stupidity then.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## killer b (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> You have to be pretty twisted to enjoy being a lib-dem activist. Not only shafting the public but lying to their faces over why it is necessary.


 
And having to check every parcel that arrives for stray faeces.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Just confirms your stupidity then.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Yeah, you'd have to be pretty sick in the head to like doing that


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Just confirms your stupidity then.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



Would be better flogged off. As i think the public agrees.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I think you have to be pretty twisted to enjoy walking through a Forestry Commision plantation.



You freak.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> You have to be pretty twisted to enjoy being a lib-dem activist. Not only shafting the public but lying to their faces over why it is necessary.


<applauds>


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

It takes a special kind of cunt to follow the lib-dems former recruitment strategy at the universities etc knowing full well that you and your party do not mean a word of it and will go along to some tories and tell them exactly the opposite - and ENJOY this activity. 

Some would call that sadism, moon ...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

Not to mention the cult-like brainwashing


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

MalignantSociopath23.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 1, 2011)

killer b said:


> And having to check every parcel that arrives for stray faeces.


 
Surely if it arrives at its intended destination, it's not "stray"...?


----------



## killer b (Mar 1, 2011)

Well targetted faeces then. Pedant.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 1, 2011)

Sorry.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> It takes a special kind of cunt to follow the lib-dems former recruitment strategy at the universities etc knowing full well that you and your party do not mean a word of it and will go along to some tories and tell them exactly the opposite - and ENJOY this activity.
> 
> Some would call that sadism, moon ...


 

I feel quite proud about belonging to a party that has ended child detention, ID cards and securing the pupil premium. It’s the Lib Dems fault there has been a global recession that is now resulting in cuts being made.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Even the cuts in local government only return them to about 2005-2006 levels, public spending has been going up and up it's economic illiteracy to assume that we have a magic pot of gold with which to carry on spending.

This isn't about being a mean nasty Tory, it's about the cold reality of the economic situation and trying to advert making the whole country go bust.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Why waste money on stamps?
> 
> Just fucking send them, and let them pay the postage.


 
Nah, shit in a box and just put a first class stamp on it. That way, they have to go pick it up from the delivery office, pay the excess postage *and* the £1 fee, and all for a turd in a box!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I feel quite proud about belonging to a party that has ended child detention, ID cards and securing the pupil premium. It’s the Lib Dems fault there has been a global recession that is now resulting in cuts being made.


I agree, you should feel proud and get what's coming to you for these things.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Even the cuts in local government only return them to about 2005-2006 levels, public spending has been going up and up it's economic illiteracy to assume that we have a magic pot of gold with which to carry on spending.
> 
> This isn't about being a mean nasty Tory, it's about the cold reality of the economic situation and trying to advert making the whole country go bust.


 
Yeah, your lot are certainly doing a good job of advertising that the country is going bust.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Even the cuts in local government only return them to about 2005-2006 levels, public spending has been going up and up it's economic illiteracy to assume that we have a magic pot of gold with which to carry on spending.
> 
> This isn't about being a mean nasty Tory, it's about the cold reality of the economic situation and trying to advert making the whole country go bust.



You just don't care no matter what counter evidence is produced do you. Return to what? You were shown to be laughably wrong on the same claim on public spending - want another go?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Nah, shit in a box and just put a first class stamp on it. That way, they have to go pick it up from the delivery office, pay the excess postage *and* the £1 fee, and all for a turd in a box!


 
Would you like someone who disagreed with your political views to send you shit? What kind of person thinks this is a reasonable way to carry on?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Even the cuts in local government only return them to about 2005-2006 levels, public spending has been going up and up it's economic illiteracy to assume that we have a magic pot of gold with which to carry on spending.
> 
> This isn't about being a mean nasty Tory, it's about the cold reality of the economic situation and trying to advert making the whole country go bust.



Give me some figures and support for this post.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You just don't care no matter what counter evidence is produced do you. Return to what? You were shown to be laughably wrong on the same claim on public spending - want another go?


 
But Labour ...


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You just don't care no matter what counter evidence is produced do you. Return to what? You were shown to be laughably wrong on the same claim on public spending - want another go?


 
I haven't been proved wrong, it's just this is a left-wing forum and you would rather bury your collective heads in the sand than accept the reality of the nation's debt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Would you like someone who disagreed with your political views to send you shit? What kind of person thinks this is a reasonable way to carry on?


 

I would yes, i get your parties shit though my letter box every may


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I feel quite proud about belonging to a party that has ended child detention, ID cards and securing the pupil premium. It’s the Lib Dems fault there has been a global recession that is now resulting in cuts being made.


 
Child detention will hopefully end by May in immigration cases. ID cards were dead in the water. The pupil premium is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The recession wasn't the Lib Dems fault, but the scale and speed of the cuts most definitely is.

The fact that you are quite proud of this miserable and disingenuous list just adds to the tally of your anti-social stupidity.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I haven't been proved wrong, it's just this is a left-wing forum and you would rather bury your collective heads in the sand than accept the reality of the nation's debt.


 
Well that's a good argument. You were. Not that it mattered to you.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Would you like someone who disagreed with your political views to send you shit? What kind of person thinks this is a reasonable way to carry on?



The same sort of person who thinks turfing people out of their homes and asset-stripping the entire country and turning it over to their speculator mates is a "reasonable way to carry on"


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

Decency people, decency.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I think you have to be pretty twisted to enjoy walking through a Forestry Commision plantation...



What. The. Fuck? 



> ...or to post shit to someone working in an MPs office.


 

No, you're posting it to the MP, not to someone in his office.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Child detention will hopefully end by May in immigration cases. ID cards were dead in the water. The pupil premium is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The recession wasn't the Lib Dems fault, but the scale and speed of the cuts most definitely is.
> 
> The fact that you are quite proud of this miserable and disingenuous list just adds to the tally of your anti-social stupidity.
> 
> Louis MacNeice



I'm proud to be a Lib Dem, not because the party has been tasked with dealing with the economic pile of shit it inherited, but because in dealing with these problems it's brining forward legislation that makes Britain a more liberal country, that starts to roll-back the creeping authoritarianism, that had grown up under the Blair/Brown era.  You can seek to minimise this achievements all you, but I’m proud of them.

Labour announced they would be introducing £14Bn pound worth of cuts, only £2Bn less the coalition. So no matter what party got elected you would be seeing cuts now. You can blame the Lib Dems all you want be things wouldn't be that economically different if the party didn't exist.  The only thing is the Conservatives probably wouldn't have done anything to reduce innocent people's DNA on the Database or cared as much to reduce trial without detention.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> What. The. Fuck?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Oh right, who do you think opens MPs post? Does Clegg sit there every morning sorting out his mail or is it one of his office workers? Either way it's an offensive way to conduct yourself in politics.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> The same sort of person who thinks turfing people out of their homes and asset-stripping the entire country and turning it over to their speculator mates is a "reasonable way to carry on"


 
The entire country isn't being asset-stripped, we are returning to 2007 levels of spending after  the current global economic situation has rendered ever increasing public sector spending unsustainable.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm proud to be a Lib Dem, not because the party has been tasked with dealing with the economic pile of shit it inherited...



Not by the electorate. Thank you so much for your unmandated attacks on the poorest, the attacks on the NHS and so on.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The entire country isn't being asset-stripped, we are returning to 2007 levels of spending after  the current global economic situation has rendered ever increasing public sector spending unsustainable.


 
With the state spending now being funneled into  private companies, not the NHS and the needed social services. That's neo-liberalism.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

You're right, it's not a decent way to conduct yourself in politics. Unlike this.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I feel quite proud about belonging to a party that has ended child detention...


You haven't. You've set a target to end it that hasn't yet been fulfilled. Not the same thing. 

Next!


> ...ID cards...


Which the Tories were already committed to.

Next!.


> and securing the pupil premium.


You mean the re-circulation of old funding as new funding that's known as "the pupil premium"?

Try harder.


> It’s the Lib Dems fault there has been a global recession that is now resulting in cuts being made.


There were unfavurable economic conditions for more than two years before your leader threw in his lot with his schoolmates, so the cuts were eminently foreseeable, even by someone as politically-inept as Clegg. Don't make excuses.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> You're right, it's not a decent way to conduct yourself in politics. Unlike this.


 
I think that leaflet was disgraceful.  Of course There are things my party does, or has done that I don’t like.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

Yeah right.


----------



## embree (Mar 1, 2011)

I can't believe we've had this many posts about posting turds to Lib Dems and nobody's mentioned Oaten


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You haven't. You've set a target to end it that hasn't yet been fulfilled. Not the same thing.
> 
> Which the Tories were already committed to.



The whole argument on this board is that it's only because of the Lib Dems that the cuts can go through, yet when the Lib Dems help achieve something good you dismiss it as being a Tory thing.

You can't have your cake and eat it.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

He can't but your party's speculator mates can.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 1, 2011)

BTW - the 'returning local authority spending to 2005-2006 levels' is utterly disengenuous.

The stat is  based on GDP, not on the amount of funding. 

So moon -are you proud that the poorest parts of the country are seeing youth services, community centres, health projects, environmental projects, debt advice etc etc etc being slashed? 

Are you proud that youth unemployment is at over 20% and rising? 

Are you proud that the funding cuts are all being front loaded for the next financial year - meaning that there is no chance for them to be phased in and jobs losses made through natural wastage? And that this is being done purely to fit in with the electrol calander?

Are you proud that the poorest LAs in the country are facing masively bigger cuts then the richest (some of whom have had their budgets _increased_)?

Are you proud that all this is in direct contradiction to what your party was arguing prior to the election?  

You make me fucking sick - go and drown yourself in a bucket of shit.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It’s the Lib Dems fault there has been a global recession that is now resulting in cuts being made.


 That's funny; your previous line was that the cuts were made necessary by Labour mismanaging the economy.
All over the place,aren't we?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Even the cuts in local government only return them to about 2005-2006 levels, public spending has been going up and up it's economic illiteracy to assume that we have a magic pot of gold with which to carry on spending.



The sheer gall of someone who's repeatedly shown his own ignorance on the subject, talking of economic illiteracy! 

It's economically illiterate to assume that the cuts, as they stand, are "necessary". It's socially illiterate to not appreciate that these cuts are being executed against particular parts of the socio-economic structure in order to bring about ideologically-motivated outcomes. it's financially illiterate to not see that cutting spending during a stagnant or downward phase of the economy endangers that economy.



> This isn't about being a mean nasty Tory, it's about the cold reality of the economic situation and trying to advert making the whole country go bust.


 
Whenever someone deploys tropes such as "pot of gold" or "cold reality", you know that they've read the propaganda, and taken a drink of the Kool-Aid.

You're an idiot.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

Hey, lay off the poor sociopath. It's not the Lib Dems fault there's a global recession on! _It's Labour's fault_!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I think that leaflet was disgraceful.  Of course There are things my party does, or has done that I don’t like.


 

You walked into that one. Lib-dems mentioning decency when you have a long standing reputation among activists of all parties (and none) of being the dirtiest campaigners in politics. I hope Nick Clegg slips and breaks something on a dog shit someone pushes into his letter box. There, is that decent enough for you?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm proud to be a Lib Dem, not because the party has been tasked with dealing with the economic pile of shit it inherited, but because in dealing with these problems it's brining forward legislation that makes Britain a more liberal country, that starts to roll-back the creeping authoritarianism, that had grown up under the Blair/Brown era.  You can seek to minimise this achievements all you, but I’m proud of them.
> 
> Labour announced they would be introducing £14Bn pound worth of cuts, only £2Bn less the coalition. So no matter what party got elected you would be seeing cuts now. You can blame the Lib Dems all you want be things wouldn't be that economically different if the party didn't exist.  The only thing is the Conservatives probably wouldn't have done anything to reduce innocent people's DNA on the Database or cared as much to reduce trial without detention.



You're proud because you are cruel. Only a cruel person could hold the meagre crumbs you cite in the balance against the savage attacks on jobs and services, and see the former as worth it.

You're proud because you are myopic. Only someone who cannot see past the end of the nose he is being led by, past the cosy cuts consensus of the three big parties, could take pride in the coming hurt.

Hurtful, blind and stupid as you have shown yourself to be, you make a great champion for your liberal cause.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Would you like someone who disagreed with your political views to send you shit? What kind of person thinks this is a reasonable way to carry on?


 
I've been given beatings for my political views. A turd wouldn't worry me.

What kind of person thinks it's a reasonable way to carry on? The kind of person who knows through experience that making representations to their constituency party gets fuck-all done, you self-righteous idiot.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 1, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You're an idiot.



Basically.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The entire country isn't being asset-stripped, we are returning to 2007 levels of spending after  the current global economic situation has rendered ever increasing public sector spending unsustainable.


Oh,stop these ridiculous LIES!


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> BTW - the 'returning local authority spending to 2005-2006 levels' is utterly disengenuous.
> 
> So moon -are you proud that the poorest parts of the country are seeing youth services, community centres, health projects, environmental projects, debt advice etc etc etc being slashed?



Of course i'm not proud, but this is the knock-on affect of the global economic crisis. 



> Are you proud that youth unemployment is at over 20% and rising?



Again no, but youth have for decades been sold the lie that a university degree was the route to employement. 



> Are you proud that the funding cuts are all being front loaded for the next financial year - meaning that there is no chance for them to be phased in jobs losses made through natural wastage? And that this is being done purely to fit in with the electrol calander?



Many organisations have already gone through a period of voluntary redundancies and natural wastage. I think if cuts have to be made the you need to make them quickly. One benefit of this is that is demonstrates to the international money markets that we are serious about tackling our debt. Every bit of debt we pay off means that in the future we will have more money to spend. Tackling the defecit now keeps borrowing interest payments under control. 



> Are you proud that all this is in direct contradiction to what your party was arguing prior to the election?



You forget the Lib Dems didn't win the election, we got five less seats. What you need to appreciate is that people made the choice to elect conservative MPs. You would be better off directing your anger towards them.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

I've had members of my family stop speaking to me because of my views. If the worst you fear is a turd after destoying the lives of millions of people and asset-stripping and third-worldifying britain's economy then you shoud count yourself fucking lucky tbh.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Oh,stop these ridiculous LIES!


 
Ok then explain  then how the entire country is being asset-stripped.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Oh right, who do you think opens MPs post? Does Clegg sit there every morning sorting out his mail or is it one of his office workers?


Your point was about it being sent to his office, I corrected you, halfwit. 


> Either way it's an offensive way to conduct yourself in politics.


 
Should we all abide by Queensberry Rules, then? Be good little drones and never step outside the mandated bounds of protest?

Fuck right off.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Oh right, who do you think opens MPs post? Does Clegg sit there every morning sorting out his mail or is it one of his office workers? Either way it's an offensive way to conduct yourself in politics.


TOUGH.They CHOOSE to work for a wanker


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

Towards the tories? People voted for your scum party because they thought you were to the left of Labour. 

Without the lib dems a coalition would not be possible. Without the lib-dems Cameron would have led a minority government and there probably would have been another election by now. It was your parties choice to go into government with the Tories.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

People voted for your scum party because they were quite deliberately decieved by them into thinking they had different intentions to what they had. That is why people hate you and not the Tories, because they expect the tories to behave like cunts. I didn't but a lot of people expected you to be better.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> I've had members of my family stop speaking to me because of my views. If the worst you fear is a turd after destoying the lives of millions of people and asset-stripping and third-worldifying britain's economy then you shoud count yourself fucking lucky tbh.


 
People are suffering hardship now becuase of a global economic crisis Frogwoman, not becuase of Clegg. The Millions of people whose lives have been destroyed are those who once lived in Iraq. 

Britian would have become a third-world economy if nothing had been done to tackle the debt, and we had been faced with runaway bond repayments, and a collpase in the currency.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> People voted for your scum party because they were quite deliberately decieved by them into thinking they had different intentions to what they had. That is why people hate you and not the Tories, because they expect the tories to behave like cunts. I didn't but a lot of people expected you to be better.


 
There hasn't been a deception, the party has strived to achieve it's manifesto commitments. It's a coalition Frogwoman, that means you don’t get everything your own way.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> People are suffering hardship now becuase of a global economic crisis Frogwoman, not becuase of Clegg. The Millions of people whose lives have been destroyed are those who once lived in Iraq.
> 
> Britian would have become a third-world economy if nothing had been done to tackle the debt, and we had been faced with runaway bond repayments, and a collpase in the currency.


 

An economic crisis that due to your policies you are doing everything to prolong and deepen despite the advice of many leading economists.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There hasn't been a deception, the party has strived to achieve it's manifesto commitments. It's a coalition Frogwoman, that means you don’t get everything your own way.


 
No you haven't. You aren't even campaigning for PR any more but for a retrograde step from FPTP. 

You chose to go into a coalition with the tories. Nobody fucking forced you to get into bed with them.

And if there was no deception then what do you call Clegg attending student protests and signing a pledge he'd vote against fees a few weeks before voting for them.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> TOUGH.They CHOOSE to work for a wanker


 
So because you have decided that someone is a wanker that justifies you abusing them.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

He is objectively a wanker, and yes. Dickface.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> strived to achieve it's manifesto commitments



Is there a word for a mix between a hack and cock? Oh yeah, there is, a lying hack cock.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> An economic crisis that due to your policies you are doing everything to prolong and deepen despite the advice of many leading economists.


 
We will have to see if it works, currently the scaremongering about cuts isnn't helping.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> We will have to see if it works.


 
"SEE IF IT WORKS"??? Is that how to run a country?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> We will have to see if it works.


 
Does it  look like it's working -0.6% growth?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So because you have decided that someone is a wanker that justifies you abusing them.


 
As a result of his policies people will die while property speculators and assorted vermin are gorging themselves due to tax cuts and other "reforms". I think it justifies shit being snet through his letterbox and more.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> currently the scaremongering about cuts isnn't helping.


 
Psychopath.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> We will have to see if it works, currently the scaremongering about cuts isnn't helping.


 
No, not 'we' - the poorest and the least able to look after themselves if we're wrong. You murderous puffed up cunt.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Does it  look like it's working -0.6% growth?


 
Most recessions have some form of double-dip I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from such a short-term indicator.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, not 'we' - the poorest and the least able to look after themselves if we're wrong. You murderous puffed up cunt.


 
How am I murderous? This is a ludicrous claim.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> We will have to see if it works, currently the scaremongering about cuts isnn't helping.


 
What scaremongering?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What scaremongering?


 
Claiming 50,000 jobs are going in the NHS for instance.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

Let me guess ... it's Labour's fault again.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Claiming 50,000 jobs are going in the NHS for instance.


 
"Claiming", eh?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Claiming 50,000 jobs are going in the NHS for instance.


 
Yeah! You can prove _anything_ with FACTS!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Claiming 50,000 jobs are going in the NHS for instance.


 
How many jobs _are_ going in the NHS so far. I know you have the figures to hand. Let's have a look.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Let me guess ... it's Labour's fault again.


 
No it's not all Labour's fault. I do think that during the boom years they should have been putting more money away to weather the storm during the recession, but I don't blame them solely for the global recession. The global recession is a hugely complex and multi-faceted economic crisis, it’s beyond the responsibility of even Brown or Blair.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What scaremongering?


 
The proles trying to stop their livelihoods being wrecked and public services being destroyed in order to line the pockets of Gideon and Dave's cronies is making the Lib Dems look bad. Please stop being so inconsiderate.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> How many jobs _are_ going in the NHS so far. I know you have the figures to hand. Let's have a look.


 
The RCN estimates 27,000 nursing posts will be lost.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

The fact is though that there isn't nearly enough "scaremongering" as should be happening. There are things comrades and others have told me re: cuts that I can't put up on here because it could lose them their jobs.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

Btw Moon look up "mode 4" and tell me that we are being hysterical.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> "Claiming", eh?


 
Yes False Economy themselves admit that "most of the cuts are likely to be achieved through natural wastage". Yet these are portrayed as some kind of mass cut by those who carry on as this is the start of the apocalypse.  

If you actually look at the figures the included things like Doctors moving to other hospitals as losses, and unfilled vacancies. 

No where is it mentioned that the coalition has actually seen an increase in Doctors and Nurses in and a decrease in managerial staff.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

If moon23 doesn't stand to gain financially from any of this, then he/she/it is incredibly, _incredibly_ stupid.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Btw Moon look up "mode 4" and tell me that we are being hysterical.


 
Can you explain please


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

Nice source


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

Brilliant, he's now defending the Tories.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Can you explain please


 
http://www.worldtradelaw.net/articles/broudemode4.pdf


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> If moon23 doesn't stand to gain financially from any of this, then he/she/it is incredibly, _incredibly_ stupid.


 
No I don't gain at all, in fact the organisation that pays may wage has had to cut down my hours due to their loss of assets in the global economic crisis. That wasn't the Coalition's fault though, neither would it be rational for me to demonise Liberal Democrats for all of the countries problems.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

You thick bastard.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Nice source


 
You wouldn't say that if it was from a paper that backed your point of view. The actual source is the NHS information centre.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> No I don't gain at all, in fact the organisation that pays may wage has had to cut down my hours due to their loss of assets in the global economic crisis. That wasn't the Coalition's fault though, neither would it be rational for me to demonise Liberal Democrats for all of the countries problems.


 
Tough shit because that is exactly what the country will and is doing.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

It is basically a system which allows workers to be brought here from other countries, including those outside the EU and paid on the wage rates of their country of origin. It is not covered by immigration law and they have almost no rights because it is seen as "temporary labour movements" rather than immigration. And I know this was going on under a Labour government, but my point is that there is not enough scaremongering, not enough awareness that these horrors are going on, even among the far left (this weekend was the first i herad of it)

http://www.caef.org.uk/d119ldr.htm


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> You wouldn't say that if it was from a paper that backed your point of view. The actual source is the NHS information centre.


 
What is the NHS information centre? 


And yes I would. If I was trying to promote how great my party was I wouldn't post something up from its paper and call you a loon when you didn't believe it.


----------



## killer b (Mar 1, 2011)

moon seems a bit obsessed about the whole 'shit in the post' thing. this suggests recent, close up experience of such activism.

been on postroom duties at your local libdem office moon?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

killer b said:


> moon seems a bit obsessed about the whole 'shit in the post' thing. :


.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What is the NHS information centre?
> 
> 
> And yes I would. If I was trying to promote how great my party was I wouldn't post something up from its paper and call you a loon when you didn't believe it.


 
Given that the Spectator is basically your party's paper as well now.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The RCN estimates 27,000 nursing posts will be lost.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Yes, and people like myself need to try and ensure the Lib Dems hold the Tories to account over NHS job loses in front-line services.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

Shameless.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So because you have decided that someone is a wanker that justifies you abusing them.


Yes,it does.They've shown which side they're on


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> No it's not all Labour's fault. I do think that during the boom years they should have been putting more money away to weather the storm during the recession, but I don't blame them solely for the global recession. The global recession is a hugely complex and multi-faceted economic crisis, it’s beyond the responsibility of even Brown or Blair.


You've changed your tune...AGAIN!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, and people like myself need to try and ensure the Lib Dems hold the Tories to account over NHS job loses in front-line services.


 
Either dangerously thick or a shameless liar or both.


----------



## killer b (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, and people like myself need to try and ensure the Lib Dems hold the Tories to account over NHS job loses in front-line services.


 
it's ok. leave that to us.

you've got the post to open.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> You thick bastard.


He's basically spinning (badly) for people who are hellbent on shafting him


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

What's this NHS information centre btw?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

Is moon23 actually Shevek's partner?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 1, 2011)

Moon - your just a spam artist for your shitty little mini-me tory party. 

Whatever their policies, you would be aruging the case on here, repeating whatever distortions, platitudes and stock answers are being churned out by the lib-dem spin machine. You are not in the business of debate - your just some wanner-be party hack - a pathetic little slime machine.  

Try the Guardian Comment if Free pages - plenty of your fellow hacks on there, please refarin from spamming up these boards any more.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I think that leaflet was disgraceful.  Of course There are things my party does, or has done that I don’t like.


 
Name one, recently. Don't try to defend them at the same time btw.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 1, 2011)

Anyway - got to go - Bowels are moving.

(now where's that jiffy bag?)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The entire country isn't being asset-stripped, we are returning to 2007 levels of spending after  the current global economic situation has rendered ever increasing public sector spending unsustainable.


 
So, no privatisations or quasi-privatisations on the go? No contracts being signed where the public gets a lousy deal? No rolling back of the welfare state for putatively economic reasons that are in actuality ideological reasons? 
No bad decisions by the current government that have had the effect of lengthening and/or worsening the current economic phase? No deliberate limitation of publicity on any fiscal strengthening brought about by the last government?

You really *are* economically and politically                                                             illiterate, aren't you?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The whole argument on this board is that it's only because of the Lib Dems that the cuts can go through...


You hold the balance of power, so it's perfectly reasonable to presume that without Lib-Dem acquiescence, the cuts *can't* go through. 


> ....yet when the Lib Dems help achieve something good you dismiss it as being a Tory thing.



No, I didn't do that, I pointed out the *actuality* of the instances you cited, rather than the fantasy versions you proffered. 



> You can't have your cake and eat it.



I'm not trying to.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Most recessions have some form of double-dip I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from such a short-term indicator.


HUH??No, they certainly _don't_!-unless a govt has a deflationary economic policy.
Like the condems do


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Claiming 50,000 jobs are going in the NHS for instance.


 
The St George's healthcare trust in Tooting, down the road from Brixton, has had to shed just under a thousand jobs in the last couple of months due to the nature of spending "ring-fencing" turning out to be mythical. This is going to be repeated in just about every trust. If we're *lucky* only 50,000 jobs will be lost.

So stick your pontificating claims that 50,000 job losses is "scare-mongering", you greasy-arseholed ignoramus.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> You wouldn't say that if it was from a paper that backed your point of view. The actual source is the NHS information centre.


 
Mmmm, but no attribution of where the specific data came from/where/what the NHS compiled the data from, either on the _Speccy_ website, or in the article.

Oh, and the chart comes from an *article*, NOT from a paper. Big difference.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 1, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> What's this NHS information centre btw?


 
it's the NHS's central data collection bureau.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

oh ok


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> You hold the balance of power, so it's perfectly reasonable to presume that without Lib-Dem acquiescence, the cuts *can't* go through.



Even if the Lib Dems had tried to secure some rainbow alliance with Labour then we would be looking at implementing Darling's economic plan that involved £14Bn of cuts, only £2Bn less then the coalition.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Even if the Lib Dems had tried to secure some rainbow alliance with Labour then we would be looking at implementing Darling's economic plan that involved £14Bn of cuts, only £2Bn less then the coalition.


 Don't do that then. You had that option. But you chose not to take it because your party supports these cuts and these cuts now. Despite it spitting in the face of those who voted for you on he basis of your manifesto which said the exact opposite. You wonder why people hate politicians? You fucking rat.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Moon - your just a spam artist for your shitty little mini-me tory party.



I've been a member of this board for a few years, hardly just a spam artist.



> Whatever their policies, you would be aruging the case on here, repeating whatever distortions, platitudes and stock answers are being churned out by the lib-dem spin machine. You are not in the business of debate - your just some wanner-be party hack - a pathetic little slime machine.



Not really, I spend just as much effort debating with people within the Lib Dems, trying to get them to be more liberal.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I've been a member of this board for a few years, hardly just a spam artist.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, I spend just as much effort debating with people within the Lib Dems, trying to get them to be more liberal.



Please please  more liberal whilst you attack the poorest and the very fundamentals of society.

You pointless wretch.


----------



## Hocus Eye. (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I've been a member of this board for a few years, hardly just a spam artist.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really, I spend just as much effort debating with people within the Lib Dems, trying to get them to be more liberal.



You will be wasting your time the. You are on the hard right of he party. Or is that what you mean by 'liberal'?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Don't do that then. You had that option. But you chose not to take it because your party supports these cuts and these cuts now. Despite it spitting in the face of those who voted for you on he basis of your manifesto which said the exact opposite. You wonder why people hate politicians? You fucking rat.



The manifesto said the party would reduce the defecit you tool

_ 
"The health of the economy depends on the health of the country’s fi nances.
Public borrowing has reached unsustainable levels, and needs to be brought
under control to protect the country’s economic future.
A Liberal Democrat government will be straight with people about the tough
choices ahead. Not only must waste be eliminated, but we must also be bold
about fi nding big areas of spending that can be cut completely. That way we
can control borrowing, protect the services people rely on most and still fi nd
some money to invest in building a fair future for everyone."_


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

It was hardly going to say it would increase it. Clegg and you campaigned on the basis of slower less aggressive cuts as the way to reduce the deficit.  You lied. That's AV, that's coalition, that the lib-dems and that's democracy.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Please please  more liberal whilst you attack the poorest and the very fundamentals of society.
> 
> You pointless wretch.


 
The poorest have been attacked by a benefits sysem that punishes work, and a global economic recession. The Lib Dems are ensuring the poorest pay less tax by increasing the tax allowance.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

So suddenly it's all about the manifesto.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The poorest have been attacked by a benefits sysem that punishes work, and a global economic recession. The Lib Dems are ensuring the poorest pay less tax by increasing the tax allowance.


 
This both _means nothing_, sounds like a advert and justifies a tax cut for the well off. Great.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It was hardly going to say it would increase it. Clegg and you campaigned on the basis of slower less aggressive cuts as the way to reduce the deficit.  You lied. That's AV, that's coalition, that the lib-dems and that's democracy.


 
The Lib Dems argued for slower cuts, then people voted Conservative and they were the largest parliamentary party. The coalition is the reflection of those democratic views. AV is a compromise.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> So suddenly it's all about the manifesto.


 
But only a fool expect someone to follow the manifesto? By def it's impossible in a coalition? Keep your shitty story straight moon.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems argued for slower cuts, then people voted Conservative and they were the largest parliamentary party. The coalition is the reflection of those democratic views. AV is a compromise.


 
This makes no sense whatosever.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems argued for slower cuts, then people voted Conservative and they were the largest parliamentary party. The coalition is the reflection of those democratic views. AV is a compromise.


 
It's like jackanory with you isn't it? The tories could only govern with your support, Your element of the coalition has pushed the hardest for cuts. That's not something that people voted for. It's something you campaigned against. Yet you did it. You've got nothing left to say to anyone.

BTW, that post i'm replying to, _it means nothing_. Have another go.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

Face it socialist lost the economic arguments long ago. Even the the moderate left views of Labour were defeated in the election.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Face it socialist lost the economic arguments long ago. Even the the moderate left views of Labour were defeated in the election.


 
Hello sass.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 1, 2011)

There is currently an internship vacancy in Lib Dem MP Jo Swinson's Constituency office


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It's like jackanory with you isn't it? The tories could only govern with your support, Your element of the coalition has pushed the hardest for cuts. That's not something that people voted for. It's something you campaigned against. Yet you did it. You've got nothing left to say to anyone.
> 
> BTW, that post i'm replying to, _it means nothing_. Have another go.



People voted either for a Conservative party that supported cuts, a Labour party that supported cuts Liberal Democrats that supported cuts. The only difference was the scale of cuts, and in this regard more people supported the Conservatives then Labour


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> People voted either for a Conservative party that supported cuts, a Labour party that supported cuts Liberal Democrats that supported cuts. The only difference was the scale of cuts, and in this regard more people supported the Conservatives then Labour


 
Yes, and labour and you argued against what's happening now.

The only difference was the difference. We only lied about what we lied about.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The Lib Dems argued for slower cuts, then people voted Conservative and they were the largest parliamentary party. The coalition is the reflection of those democratic views. AV is a compromise.


Compromise?you've given them virtually _everything_ they wanted,on public spending.
That's political whoredom, not 'compromise'.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, and people like myself need to try and ensure the Lib Dems hold the Tories to account over NHS job loses in front-line services.


 
Yeah, I can just see _people like you_ doing a great job of that.

You probably won't even notice it happening.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Compromise?you've given them virtually _everything_ they wanted,on public spending.
> That's political whoredom, not 'compromise'.


 
They didn't give, they insisted.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The only difference was the scale of cuts,


No,it wasn't- it's how they were arranged and implemented


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 1, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They didn't give, they insisted.


yup,shoulda made that point too.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 1, 2011)

stupid dogbot said:


> Yeah, I can just see _people like you_ doing a great job of that.
> 
> You probably won't even notice it happening.


 
That's an attitude that is hardly going to encourage me.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> That's an attitude that is hardly going to encourage me.


 
So
fucking 
what?
You
cunt


----------



## killer b (Mar 1, 2011)

be realistic moon. there's only one thing we're likely to encourage you to do, and fighting our corner against the tory hordes isn't it. you obviously aren't up to the job.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> That's an attitude that is hardly going to encourage me.


 
Good.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> That's an attitude that is hardly going to encourage me.


 
People want you to die, they don't want you be their voice.


----------



## killer b (Mar 1, 2011)

this forum is sorely lacking some sort of rep system.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 1, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Even the cuts in local government only return them to about 2005-2006 levels





moon23 said:


> The entire country isn't being asset-stripped, we are returning to 2007 levels of spending after  the current global economic situation has rendered ever increasing public sector spending unsustainable.


 
Which is it? You can't even lie consistently you disgusting little cunt.


----------



## Santino (Mar 1, 2011)

What a despicable turd of a human being.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

killer b said:


> this forum is sorely lacking some sort of rep system.


 
didn'[t used to agree, but yep.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 1, 2011)

see you didnt answer my question - what things did the party do/say recently that you don't like moon? I'll give you my list if you give me yours.


----------



## wreckhead (Mar 2, 2011)

ffs even if put certain people on ignore (which I've never done) it doesn't stop them trashing a thread I was enjoying lurking! 

The thing in my life I regret most so far is voting libdem, I don't think I'm alone - i felt dirty at the time and now I feel like the contents of Oaten's briefcase/Cleggs mail room 

Looks like 10% is the floor so far then, any better than Gadaffi's current numbers??


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2011)

wreckhead said:


> ffs even if put certain people on ignore (which I've never done) it doesn't stop them trashing a thread I was enjoying lurking!
> 
> The thing in my life I regret most so far is voting libdem, I don't think I'm alone - i felt dirty at the time and now I feel like the contents of Oaten's briefcase/Cleggs mail room
> 
> Looks like 10% is the floor so far then, any better than Gadaffi's current numbers??


 Who are you to be telling?


----------



## wreckhead (Mar 2, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Who are you to be telling?


No one really, I wasn't telling - just commenting with perhaps not enough of a smile on my virtual face


----------



## moon23 (Mar 2, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> didn'[t used to agree, but yep.



Some kind of Urban medal system maybe?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 2, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Which is it? You can't even lie consistently you disgusting little cunt.


 
One figure is for local council spending, the other is for national spending.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 2, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> see you didnt answer my question - what things did the party do/say recently that you don't like moon? I'll give you my list if you give me yours.



The main thing for me recently was the compromise on control orders, being turned into surveillance orders. I would have liked to have seen them push harder to get scrapped. I also think the tuition fee system could have been weighted more to ensure the rich have an early repayment penalty like you might on a mortgage. I also think that the Department for Communities and Local Government had too much of it's budget taken away. I would have preferred to see a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the overseas aid budget being cut in-line with other departments.

I'm sure there are other things as well.


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 2, 2011)

moon favourite man is becoming a figure of fun

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/01/nick-clegg-nightmare-question-time


----------



## moon23 (Mar 2, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> moon favourite man is becoming a figure of fun
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/01/nick-clegg-nightmare-question-time


 
Labour take a particular delight in knocking the Lib Dems at the moment, I don't care that much. To be honest I’m just glad to see lot's of their illiberal legislation being removed from the statute books. 

At some point they will might realise in simply stealing Lib Dem votes they haven't tackled the Conservative swing votes. This is their big strategic mistake.


----------



## free spirit (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Labour take a particular delight in knocking the Lib Dems at the moment, I don't care that much. To be honest I’m just glad to see lot's of their illiberal legislation being removed from the statute books.
> 
> At some point they will might realise in simply stealing Lib Dem votes they haven't tackled the Conservative swing votes. This is their big strategic mistake.


a strategic mistake that's done what to labour's poll ratings vs the lib dems strategic masterstrokes that have done what to theirs?

not that I'm really one to talk about strategic mistakes mind given how badly wrong my cunning plan to keep the tories out has gone.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> At some point they will might realise in simply stealing Lib Dem votes they haven't tackled the Conservative swing votes. This is their big strategic mistake.


HUH??15 %age points up since the GE? ALL of them from disillusioned libdems?
err, yeah, _sure_.....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Even if the Lib Dems had tried to secure some rainbow alliance with Labour then we would be looking at implementing Darling's economic plan that involved £14Bn of cuts, only £2Bn less then the coalition.


 
Disingenuous twat.
The difference wasn't only in volume, but in the taper of application.  The Labour cuts would at least have held off cutting until the economy was in sustained recovery, thus minimising the risk of stagnation or recession.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2011)

free spirit said:


> a strategic mistake that's done what to labour's poll ratings vs the lib dems strategic masterstrokes that have done what to theirs?
> 
> not that I'm really one to talk about strategic mistakes mind given how badly wrong my cunning plan to keep the tories out has gone.


 
But you can come back. People like this loon can't.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Labour take a particular delight in knocking the Lib Dems at the moment, I don't care that much. To be honest I’m just glad to see lot's of their illiberal legislation being removed from the statute books.
> 
> At some point they will might realise in simply stealing Lib Dem votes they haven't tackled the Conservative swing votes. This is their big strategic mistake.



Yeah, it's barely getting to you.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The poorest have been attacked by a benefits sysem that punishes work...


A phrase lifted wholesale from Iain Duncan Shit and his boss Donny Cameron, and one that can't actually be sustained if you have anything more than a basic knowledge of the welfare system. 



> ....and a global economic recession.


There is no "global economic recession", you gimp. There's a downturn globally, with patches of recession. Those patches are generally in states whose economic policies have exacerbated their local economic problems.



> The Lib Dems are ensuring the poorest pay less tax by increasing the tax allowance.


Wow, that will really make the difference!


----------



## Santino (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The poorest have been attacked by a benefits sysem that punishes work, and a global economic recession. The Lib Dems are ensuring the poorest pay less tax by increasing the tax allowance.



This is false. The bottom third of earners will be paying more tax because VAT has been increased to pay for this supposed lowering of the tax bill. The tax burden has been re-distributed in favour of indirect taxation, disadvantaging the poorest.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Face it socialist lost the economic arguments long ago. Even the the moderate left views of Labour were defeated in the election.


 
New Labour were hardly "the moderate left", which is one of the reasons *why* they lost the election. 

When all three main parties are retailing the same socio-economic policies, albeit in slightly different wrappers, one bunch of worthless neo-liberal gobshite goat-fuckers is much the same as the next.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 2, 2011)

moon's just a voter, one of the few per cent left who will vote for that shower again.

Speaking to Lib Dem councillors yesterday (licensing hearing, dull dull dull) they're trying to get some distance between themselves and moons beloved saviours of the economy.



moon23 said:


> Most recessions have some form of double-dip I wouldn’t draw any conclusions from such a short-term indicator.


 
Dip in growth yes, but there's never been a full on double dip recession. If Aprils figures show less than 0% growth, we'll be the first country to actually economically MANAGE its way into a recession. The 'austerity' myth is being exploded as our fellow EU countries demonstrated quarter on quarter growth during 2010. The U.K was showing increasing growth until the end of the second quarter when suddenly we had a decline, 1.1% to 0.7% - -0.6% (or -0.1% if you take the line and sinker) That means from June last year to now, our economy has contracted by 1.7% in the last TWO quarters of growth. Quarters defined by government cuts to expenditure and rising taxation (of those who aren't filthy loaded or avoiding paying).

God knows what the North Africa/Middle Eastern situation's going do with oil prices rising. Your party, your coalition, haven't got a clue how to fix it.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 2, 2011)

free spirit said:


> not that I'm really one to talk about strategic mistakes mind given how badly wrong my cunning plan to keep the tories out has gone.


 
People who voted Libdem last time and have put their hands up and admitted their mistake are redeemed in the eyes of the class.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 2, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> People who voted Libdem last time and have put their hands up and admitted their mistake are redeemed in the eyes of the class.


Yeah,"we got conned" is a fair excuse


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Labour take a particular delight in knocking the Lib Dems at the moment, I don't care that much. To be honest I’m just glad to see lot's of their illiberal legislation being removed from the statute books.
> 
> At some point they will might realise in simply stealing Lib Dem votes they haven't tackled the Conservative swing votes. This is their big strategic mistake.



Anyone with any sense knocks the Lib Dems. You should read the Daily Telegraph: they knock the Lib Dems too.  Whichever way you turn, you're fucked. Come the next general election, the Lib Dems will lose all those seats that Chatshow Charlie worked so hard to win. It's taxi time for the Lib Dems!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The main thing for me recently was the compromise on control orders, being turned into surveillance orders. I would have liked to have seen them push harder to get scrapped. I also think the tuition fee system could have been weighted more to ensure the rich have an early repayment penalty like you might on a mortgage. I also think that the Department for Communities and Local Government had too much of it's budget taken away. I would have preferred to see a withdrawal from Afghanistan, and the overseas aid budget being cut in-line with other departments.
> 
> I'm sure there are other things as well.


 
ok here's mine, there's a few things i don't like about the sp, i don't 100% agree with their position on israel and palestine being two states which in the long term imo is unviable, i think sometimes they are a bit too uncritical of some of the leading trade union leaders (although tbf they don't really need to be at the moment), i think the cwi's decision to give support (albeit critical support) to ralph nader in the US general election was "questionable", and also their attitude re: tommy sheridan which is a bit too hard line on the idea that he's innocent, given some of the things i have read about him on here and elsewhere. 

however i think there's a difference because it is not in power, and your party is. therefore your partys opinions aren't simply opinions (not that anyone's ever is and arguable the things i've described above have probably had a somewhat negative effect, the whole sheridan debacle as a whole has had a really bad impact on the whole of the scottish left). your party is in power. the influence that your parties decisions are having are influencing millions of people's lives in an extremely negative manner. your party did not have to prop up david cameron or shamelessly lie and backtrack on all its election pledges and deliberately lie and decieve people. turfing people out of homes for earning too much is a violent act. cutting people's means of survival off is a violent act adn that is not even mentioning the hundreds of thousands of jobs that will go as a result of your party's actions. 

When we criticise the lib dems we aren't just stating a preference about political opinions, we are criticising ACTIONS, which is something you do not get, or do not choose to get. If we were saying some bloke that agreed with the lib-dems should get shit posted through his letterbox then you would have a point but we are discussing someone here who is wielding political power and carrying out actions due to this position of power. 

do you see it now?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Labour take a particular delight in knocking the Lib Dems at the moment, I don't care that much. To be honest I’m just glad to see lot's of their illiberal legislation being removed from the statute books.
> 
> At some point they will might realise in simply stealing Lib Dem votes they haven't tackled the Conservative swing votes. This is their big strategic mistake.


 
And replaced with lib-dem illiberal legislation. You disingenuous eejit.


----------



## killer b (Mar 2, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> People who voted Libdem last time and have put their hands up and admitted their mistake are redeemed in the eyes of the class.


 
wouldn't go that far. they each have to stab a liberal before we let them back in.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 2, 2011)

Balbi said:


> moon's just a voter, one of the few per cent left who will vote for that shower again.
> 
> Speaking to Lib Dem councillors yesterday (licensing hearing, dull dull dull) they're trying to get some distance between themselves and moons beloved saviours of the economy.
> 
> ...


 
Yep the local lib dems here are desperately trying to put some distance between them and the tories.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 2, 2011)

moon23 said:


> The poorest have been attacked by a benefits sysem that punishes work, and a global economic recession. The Lib Dems are ensuring the poorest pay less tax by increasing the tax allowance.


 
The poorest will continue to be worse off with the universal credit, especially because there won't be any jobs to go for and people whom tax credits have helped a little bit will suddenly be told to look for a (in some cases _another_) job (stay at home parents/ part time workers). Also anyone sick and disabled is being fucked, but this started under Labour.


----------



## Santino (Mar 2, 2011)

Barnsley by-election tomorrow. Let's see if the Lib Dems can undertake UKIP or BNP.


----------



## killer b (Mar 2, 2011)

Santino said:


> Barnsley by-election tomorrow. Let's see if the Lib Dems can undertake UKIP or BNP.


 
i find myself cheering on the far right every by-election atm.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 2, 2011)

killer b said:


> wouldn't go that far. they each have to stab a liberal before we let them back in.


blimey,you are one hardcore comrade!


----------



## killer b (Mar 2, 2011)

it's a winning plan to reduce the lib dem vote still further though, no?


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 2, 2011)

killer b said:


> it's a winning plan to reduce the lib dem vote still further though, no?


it has practical merit,yes,....


----------



## Balbi (Mar 3, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> ok here's mine, there's a few things i don't like about the sp...


 
 SPLITTER! 

Agree with Israel/Palestine and Sheridan though. Enemy's enemy/state capitalism as enemy regardless of action is dodgy ground.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 3, 2011)

yep so there you go, i can understand why they took the stance they took but even so, imo they were wrong on them issues and im not afraid of saying so. 

still not the same as implimenting and carrying out cuts that will affect me directly and actually potentially kill people though.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 4, 2011)

Someone on twitter is placing them 5th in Barnsley.

Apparently tories are behind UKIP.


----------



## OneStrike (Mar 4, 2011)

I was told 5th is a possibilty for the Libs about 30minutes ago, not that 4th wouldn't be humiliating enough.  We should know in a few minutes.


----------



## strung out (Mar 4, 2011)

Labour 14,724 
UKIP 2953 
Conservative 1999 
BNP 1463 
Ind 1266
Lib Dem 1012 
English Democrat 544


----------



## OneStrike (Mar 4, 2011)

Hahahaha below Labour, UKIP, Tories, BNP and an independant!!!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 4, 2011)

Yep looks like 5th and the tories third.
Lib Dems got 1012 votes.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 4, 2011)

Shit 6th!

Have they kept their deposit? Dont think so.....


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 4, 2011)

6th! lol! 

Lost deposit?


----------



## OneStrike (Mar 4, 2011)

StrungOut, you missed the indy, they came 6th!  (LD's i mean)


----------



## Nylock (Mar 4, 2011)

Libdem vote 'imploded' -BBC


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 4, 2011)

about what? - 4% of the vote - in a low turnout as well. 

ah ha ha ha!


----------



## JimW (Mar 4, 2011)

Value


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 4, 2011)

Tory vote dropped from 17.3% to 8.3%.

Coalition from 34% to about 12%


----------



## OneStrike (Mar 4, 2011)

They smashed the Loony party,lets have a little balance


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 4, 2011)

Confirmed - they lost their deposit! 

They are going get destroyed in the local and scottish elections come may.


----------



## strung out (Mar 4, 2011)

OneStrike said:


> StrungOut, you missed the indy, they came 6th!  (LD's i mean)


 
added in sneakily once i realised


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 4, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Confirmed - they lost their deposit!
> 
> They are going get destroyed in the local and scottish elections come may.


 
That seems a likely outcome in may


----------



## discokermit (Mar 4, 2011)

moon4.18

haha!


----------



## wreckhead (Mar 4, 2011)

I came here to LOL


----------



## cointreauman (Mar 4, 2011)

Just got in from work and heard the best news of the day - LD totally spunked - Candiate admitted "we got a kicking" 

Well pal you are in a shit party with a tory bum licking leader, he electorate gave you 2nd at the General Election

Don't bother asking why you have lost your deposit

Don't have a focus group

The people recognise lying back stabbing power greedy arse wipes when they see them - there is no way back - Go now..... drop the coalition and force a new election - you might get 4 seats if you are lucky

Clegg - better grab your peerage in the Birthday Honours list.......

Glorious day = Thank you Barnsley.

C


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 4, 2011)

Surely UKIP result must worry the tories, are they the tories SDP


----------



## Weller (Mar 4, 2011)

> "we got a kicking"



some just dont know when its best to run


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

2010 Result

Eric Illsley 	Labour 	17,487 	
	Christopher Wiggin 	Liberal Democrat 	6,394 	
	Piers Tempest 	Conservative 	6,388 	
	Ian Sutton 	BNP 	3,307 	
	David Silver 	UKIP 	1,727 	
	Donald Wood 	Independent 	732 	
	Antony Devoy 	Independent 	610 	
	Terence Robinson 	Socialist Labour 	356 	

2011 Result (10 months later)

1 Dan Jarvis (Lab) 14,724, 
2 Jane Collins (UKIP) 2,953,
 3 James Hockney (C) 1,999,
 4 Enis Dalton (BNP) 1,463,
 5 Tony Devoy (Ind) 1,266
, 6 Dominic Carman (LD) 1,012.
7 Kevin Riddiough (Eng Dem) 544
8 Howling Laud Hope (Loony) 198
9 Michael Val Davies (Ind) 60 

Ouch.

Turnout down by 20% on 2010 as well, 56.5% down to 36.5%


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 4, 2011)

Perhaps under AV they would have come fifth.


----------



## Voley (Mar 4, 2011)

I know it's a safe Labour seat but to be beaten by UKIP, the BNP and an Independent is really pretty fucking dire.


----------



## inferno (Mar 4, 2011)

How few votes do you have to get to lose your deposit?


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2011)

under 5% i think?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

Yep, Labourlist liveblogged it. Under 5% = no deposit.


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2011)

oh, and LOL.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> oh, and LOL.


 






My applause when I realise i'm applauding a BNP gain


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 4, 2011)

Too fucking funny


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 4, 2011)

Heh heh heh.

But grrrr. We're laughing at the fall guys, not the real bastards.

But heh heh heh.


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2011)

tim farron said:
			
		

> But perhaps the biggest story is that 70% of people didn't think it was worth bothering



no tim. no it isn't.


----------



## strung out (Mar 4, 2011)

Balbi said:


> My applause when I realise i'm applauding a BNP gain


 
to be fair, the BNP's vote share fell from 8.9% to 6% and they remained in fourth, so it wasn't really a gain for them. the nsdap could probably finish above the lib dems right now


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2011)

Steel☼Icarus said:


> But grrrr. We're laughing at the fall guys, not the real bastards.


 
nope, they're the real bastards too.


----------



## 19sixtysix (Mar 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> nope, they're the real bastards too.



Correct. They allowed the bastards full reign so they are thatcher loving bastards as well.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 4, 2011)

Wonder what spin moonie will regale us with.....??


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 4, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Wonder what spin moonie will regale us with.....??



"Well this will silence all those knockers who predicted we would be relegated to  third place ...."


----------



## embree (Mar 4, 2011)

NVP said:


> I know it's a safe Labour seat but to be beaten by UKIP, the BNP and an Independent is really pretty fucking dire.


 
Never mind that - it's _Barnsley_ - to be beaten by the Tories is pretty fucking dire too 

Happy morning. Thank you thank you Barnsley!


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2011)

19sixtysix said:


> Correct. They allowed the bastards full reign so they are thatcher loving bastards as well.


 
they aren't allowing the bastards full reign. they're joining in with gusto. hence this result, and the savage beating they'll get in may.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Wonder what spin moonie will regale us with.....??


 
Well it's a safe Labour seat, so it doesn't bear any reflection on the wider electoral picture. Plus, it's the electorate - it's not like they voted either us or our coalition partners into power. And it's in our manifesto that we get thumped in by elections. And Labour left such a financial mess that we couldn't afford to fund it properly because we're trying to restart the economy. And it's the bankers fault. And David Cameron couldn't get Darren Gough to stand for the Tories, so their vote collapsed. And it's not fair. Wah, wah.

Interesting how the Tory vote held the Lib Dems up in Oldham and Saddleworth, but didn't this time round. It may be a new phenomenon, the sinking ship abandoning the rats


----------



## embree (Mar 4, 2011)

Fearsome Lib Dem by-election machine


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

embree said:


> Fearsome Lib Dem by-election machine


----------



## Badgers (Mar 4, 2011)

Snigger 

Pretty shameful all round really.
Highlights this countries passion for politics.


----------



## embree (Mar 4, 2011)




----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

Charlie Sheen-esque


----------



## 19sixtysix (Mar 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> they aren't allowing the bastards full reign. they're joining in with gusto. hence this result, and the savage beating they'll get in may.


 
Actually you're right. I stand corrected.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 4, 2011)

Fantastic result, to be beaten by an independent let alone the BNP and UKIP. 

*applauds*



Roll on May, I live in a Libdem ward and will be quite happy to vote Labour to get them out.


----------



## weepiper (Mar 4, 2011)

har har


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2011)

Lib-dems stuff ed in local elections last night too - came behind the Greens in Cardiff, behind the BNP and the English Democrats in Salford -  votes under 5%...


----------



## marty21 (Mar 4, 2011)

Lib dems are fucked, if their vote can't increase in a place where the previous Labour MP was imprisoned for fraud - they are definitely fucked


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 4, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> "Well this will silence all those knockers who predicted we would be relegated to  third place ...."


----------



## treelover (Mar 4, 2011)

the other big story is that the hard right came second, and other RW parties got ok votes as well,

oh, and no left wing challenge in what was once the the heart of socialism...


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2011)

Finally, a note of jollity to the morning's posts.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> the other big story is that the hard right came second, and other RW parties got ok votes as well,
> 
> oh, and no left wing challenge in what was once the the heart of socialism...


 
BNP share of the vote went down.

but dont let that get in the way of your Eeyore-esque analysis.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 4, 2011)

Like a pig wallowing in shit


----------



## moon23 (Mar 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> the other big story is that the hard right came second, and other RW parties got ok votes as well,
> 
> oh, and no left wing challenge in what was once the the heart of socialism...


 
I can understand a traditional Labour area like Barnsley wanting to punish the Coalition and particular the Lib Dems who they feel have betrayed them by working with the Conservatives. 

You are right though, that they have switched to UKIP is not great cause for celebration.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2011)

Uh, it was the lib-dem voters switching away from your party - not labour supporters switching from your party.

That's it though is it? A lost deposit and that's it? More of this complacency please.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 4, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Wonder what spin moonie will regale us with.....??


 
There isn't anything positive about this at all. If people would rather UKIP and the BNP than the Lib Dems that is the result they get. I didn't go over to Barnsley myself to campaign, although there was a call to go and campaign against BNP and ensure they didn't beat us.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 4, 2011)

up the tykes!


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> the other big story is that the hard right came second, and other RW parties got ok votes as well,
> 
> oh, and no left wing challenge in what was once the the heart of socialism...



Yeah and UKIP while increasing their share of the vote were a distant 12,000 votes behind Labour. The BNP were down by -2.9%. This is hardly a great night for the far right.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There isn't anything positive about this at all. If people would rather UKIP and the BNP than the Lib Dems that is what they would get. I didn't go over to Barnsley myself to campaign, although there was a call to go and campaign against BNP and ensure they didn't beat us.


 
BNP and UKIP didn't do well though. Tories and Lib Dems did THAT badly.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There isn't anything positive about this at all. If people would rather UKIP and the BNP than the Lib Dems that is the result they get. I didn't go over to Barnsley myself to campaign, although there was a call to go and campaign against BNP and ensure they didn't beat us.



You say that there isn't "anything positive" because your party lost spectacularly.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Uh, it was the lib-dem voters switching away from your party - not labour supporters switching from your party.
> 
> That's it though is it? A lost deposit and that's it? More of this complacency please.



It was probably all the people who had voted Lib-Dem during the new-labour era switching back to Labour. The coalition gives Labour a chance to win back all those people who have an ingrained hatred towards the Conservatives. If you look at the polls there is a symmetrical rise in the Labour support as Lib Dem support drops. Most of my effort is focused within my own ward at the moment, and what we are doing locally in the Lib Dem/Labour coalition that runs my local authority. 

What will annoy me more, is that I have to go to UKIP conference this weekend for work, and i’m going to have to sit around listening to them crow on about coming second.


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2011)

Beautiful. is this the official line then? A victory for the hard right, not a pathetic failure by the lib dems? 

You couldn't make it up.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 4, 2011)

Balbi said:


> BNP and UKIP didn't do well though. Tories and Lib Dems did THAT badly.


 
Yes, you are probably right, that is some solace. I'd rather my party did badly, then BNP or UKIP do well.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> Beautiful. is this the official line then? A victory for the hard right, not a pathetic failure by the lib dems?
> 
> You couldn't make it up.



No I’m not the official line, just one person on a forum board. It is a pathetic failure, losing a deposit is an embarrassment.


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 4, 2011)

hahaha you are going to break bread with faranges cronies. Lol indeed.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It was probably all the people who had voted Lib-Dem during the new-labour era switching back to Labour. The coalition gives Labour a chance to win back all those people who have an ingrained hatred towards the Conservatives. If you look at the polls there is a symmetrical rise in the Labour support as Lib Dem support drops. Most of my effort is focused within my own ward at the moment, and what we are doing locally in the Lib Dem/Labour coalition that runs my local authority.
> 
> What will annoy me more, is that I have to go to UKIP conference this weekend for work, and i’m going to have to sit around listening to them crow on about coming second.



Nice try.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, you are probably right, that is some solace. I'd rather my party did badly, then BNP or UKIP do well.


 
You're going to be shitting solace after May then


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, you are probably right, that is some solace. I'd rather my party did badly, then BNP or UKIP do well.



Your logic is fatally flawed.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 4, 2011)

Balbi said:


> You're going to be shitting solace after May then


 
I'm more concerned about whether the local Lib/Lab coalition will hold or whether the council will go back to the Tories.


----------



## treelover (Mar 4, 2011)

@PT

i'm very pleased that the LD's were humiliated in Barnsley, but still the question remains, why no left candidate, not even the SLP?

is p/p just about bullies and insults now?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm more concerned about whether the local Lib/Lab coalition will hold or whether the council will go back to the Tories.


 
You could always go into coalition with them.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## past caring (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There isn't anything positive about this at all. If people would rather UKIP and the BNP than the Lib Dems that is the result they get. *I didn't go over to Barnsley myself to campaign*, although there was a call to go and campaign against BNP and ensure they didn't beat us.



That fact alone probably accounts for about 50% of the vote that you did get.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> @PT
> 
> i'm very pleased that the LD's were humiliated in Barnsley, but still the question remains, why no left candidate, not even the SLP?
> 
> is p/p just about bullies and insults now?



Hello TL - I'm with you to a degree on this in that I think the far right is better placed, than for want of a better phrase, the hard left, to take electoral advantage of the coalition's misfortunes. A lot of left votes will go to Labour and to a lesser extent the Greens. At another level I'm not too worried by this since I don't think that either the hard left or the ballot box are the places to look for the answers to the mess we find ourselves in.

Cheers and take care - Louis McNeice


----------



## moon23 (Mar 4, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You could always go into coalition with them.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Not a chance locally.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Not a chance locally.


 
Why? Are they horrid budget cutters?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## teqniq (Mar 4, 2011)

Concerning the Barnsley by-election result and the Lib-dems abject showing in it. I would like to register my gloat.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 4, 2011)

Look, some researchers have come up with the nano violin string.  I'm off to make the body.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm more concerned about whether the local Lib/Lab coalition will hold or whether the council will go back to the Tories.


 
Hah, typical LD - always looking at the small picture. Like admiring leaf buds as the tree falls on top of you.

In May, outside of trad. heartlands, you're getting a royal fucking from the electorate


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 4, 2011)

Also within trad heartlands - unless propped up by the tories as we saw happen in Oldham and Saddleworth.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 4, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Also within trad heartlands


shit-beat me to it!
SW London's a BIG heartland for them-and I'm told libdems down there are crying with relief at being three years away from the next council elections


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 4, 2011)

Has anyone posted this yet ? @moon


----------



## Balbi (Mar 4, 2011)

Danny Alexander "Nick Clegg is a great election asset"

Yes, to Labour, UKIP, Tory, BNP and Independent candidates


----------



## smokedout (Mar 4, 2011)




----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Mar 4, 2011)

smokedout said:


>


 
- great stuff


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 4, 2011)

moon23 said:


> No I’m not the official line, just one person on a forum board. It is a pathetic failure, losing a deposit is an embarrassment.


 
In the current situation I'd have though LDs would be viewing getting anything over 1% of the vote as a triumph. An election where you actually get the votes of all your party members should be seen as a success.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 4, 2011)

nino_savatte said:


> You say that there isn't "anything positive" because your party lost spectacularly.


tb(grudgingly!)f,he's taking this on the chin


----------



## FreddyB (Mar 4, 2011)

I'm not sure which is the most spectacular Libdem failure, coming in behind the BNP in this election or losing to the NF in the Wednesbury council election a few weeks ago.


----------



## Oswaldtwistle (Mar 4, 2011)

FreddyB said:


> I'm not sure which is the most spectacular Libdem failure, coming in behind the BNP in this election or losing to the NF in the Wednesbury council election a few weeks ago.



Speaking of council elections the LibDems were beaten by the BNP *and* the English Democrats in Salford yesterday.......

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/l...cil-byelection-results-from-yesterday.html#tp


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 4, 2011)

Oswaldtwistle said:


> Speaking of council elections the LibDems were beaten by the BNP *and* the English Democrats in Salford yesterday.......
> 
> http://conservativehome.blogs.com/l...cil-byelection-results-from-yesterday.html#tp


 duffed by the Greens in Cardiff too


----------



## treelover (Mar 4, 2011)

The LD's lost to the NF, WTF!


----------



## treelover (Mar 4, 2011)

'All the polls show Labour winning with a big majority, so why would Cameron call an election?

All in all, very sad but predictable in Barnsley, given the apathy and rage about the state our economy has been left in: completely dependent on public and consumer debt in order to grow, with no effective private sector to speak of in Northern cities. No wonder no-one is voting for us – they can’t imagine an alternative to living off the state in one way or another. The saddest thing is that, to its core voters, Labour is blameless. Even last night I heard Margaret Beckett spinning the usual lie about it being all due to the economic downturn and nothing to do with Labour. It made me so angry I had to switch of the telly.

It shows we have a huge mountain to climb economically and politically to rescue this country from Labour’s mess and comparatively little time in which to do it.'


from Lib Dem Voice blog, delusional...


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'All the polls show Labour winning with a big majority, so why would Cameron call an election?
> 
> All in all, very sad but predictable in Barnsley, given the apathy and rage about the state our economy has been left in: completely dependent on public and consumer debt in order to grow, with no effective private sector to speak of in Northern cities. No wonder no-one is voting for us – they can’t imagine an alternative to living off the state in one way or another. The saddest thing is that, to its core voters, Labour is blameless. Even last night I heard Margaret Beckett spinning the usual lie about it being all due to the economic downturn and nothing to do with Labour. It made me so angry I had to switch of the telly.
> 
> ...



What a fucking pranny.


----------



## Plumdaff (Mar 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> from Lib Dem Voice blog, delusional...


 
Patronising, anti-Northern neo-liberal horseshit. Just going to make it all the sweeter when they start getting wiped out nationally.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> 'All the polls show Labour winning with a big majority, so why would Cameron call an election?
> 
> All in all, very sad but predictable in Barnsley, given the apathy and rage about the state our economy has been left in: completely dependent on public and consumer debt in order to grow, with no effective private sector to speak of in Northern cities. No wonder no-one is voting for us – they can’t imagine an alternative to living off the state in one way or another. The saddest thing is that, to its core voters, Labour is blameless. Even last night I heard Margaret Beckett spinning the usual lie about it being all due to the economic downturn and nothing to do with Labour. It made me so angry I had to switch of the telly.
> 
> ...


 
At least now they're open about despising the working class.


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> they can’t imagine an alternative to living off the state in one way or another.


 
does he want a fight?


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2011)

beautiful news.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 4, 2011)

treelover said:


> All in all, very sad but predictable in Barnsley, given the apathy and rage about the state our economy has been left in: completely dependent on public and consumer debt in order to grow, with no effective private sector to speak of in Northern cities. No wonder no-one is voting for us – they can’t imagine an alternative to living off the state in one way or another. The saddest thing is that, to its core voters, Labour is blameless. Even last night I heard Margaret Beckett spinning the usual lie about it being all due to the economic downturn and nothing to do with Labour. It made me so angry I had to switch of the telly.


whattacompleteWANKER!!!


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2011)

"how to make friends and influence people" 101 ...


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 4, 2011)

what was the independents platform, anyone know? apparently he was just some random guy who didn't even do a campaign.


----------



## killer b (Mar 4, 2011)

here's a leaflet from his last campaign (at the general election i guess)

http://www.electionleaflets.org/full.php?q=4379#l10691


----------



## Augie March (Mar 4, 2011)

I suspect that they expected a drop-off of some kind, but this kind of result has really got to be a kick to Cleggo's balls if he had any.


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 5, 2011)

Parties in government always do badly in by elections but come the general election there is a big push factor for their base to get out and vote, they may not like their parties policies in government but they do not want the other side in power.

That push is likely to be largely absent for the lib dems. They have lost the pull of being an alternative to the two main parties something attractive and positive for voters to vote for but no longer have the push of keeping the tories out.

This by election looks like their loyal core in the constituancy. I am not seeing many reasons for any others to get out and vote for them in a general election....


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 5, 2011)

Chance for the lib-dems to do even worse than the Barnsley 4% coming up pretty soon in Leicester South - safe labour seat, 14% of the electorate in full time education, tories and lib-dems neck and neck so no tactical voting to prop either one up, UKIP and BNP both have presence to soak up lib-dem and tory dissidents...


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 6, 2011)

Checked on wikipedia Leicester south has two universitys .So should imagine there will be a lot student anger


----------



## Balbi (Mar 6, 2011)

Libs had that seat for a while as well, could be messy


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Chance for the lib-dems to do even worse than the Barnsley 4% coming up pretty soon in Leicester South - safe labour seat, 14% of the electorate in full time education, tories and lib-dems neck and neck so no tactical voting to prop either one up, UKIP and BNP both have presence to soak up lib-dem and tory dissidents...


 
Hopefully the Greens will be running as well, so they can cream off the liberal left voters who would rather not go back to Labour just yet.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 6, 2011)

lagtbd said:


> Patronising, anti-Northern neo-liberal horseshit. Just going to make it all the sweeter when they start getting wiped out nationally.


 
they lost in barnsley because people in barnsley are racist apparantly

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1363388/What-like-despised-man-town-political-correctness-forgot-come-SIXTH-election.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

Carman (former NF member) is very angry because the BNP have beaten him the two times he's stood for election. The New Statesman oddly mirrored this idea that it's all the far-rights fault as well.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 6, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they lost in barnsley because people in barnsley are racist apparantly
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1363388/What-like-despised-man-town-political-correctness-forgot-come-SIXTH-election.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


 
I didn't think it was possible for me to despise Liberals more than I already do but that article has upped the ante - working class people from Barnsley abuse him for his party getting into bed with the same Tories who destoryed their town and that means they're all far-right racists. The man is slime like every other Lib Dem.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

Sgt Howie said:


> I didn't think it was possible for me to despise Liberals more than I already do but that article has upped the ante - working class people from Barnsley abuse him for his party getting into bed with the same Tories who destoryed their town and that means they're all far-right racists. The man is slime like every other Lib Dem.


 
If he hates them so much what the fuck is he doing trying to represent them? When he obviously doesn't give a fuck about them.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 6, 2011)

The main problem with this article is this statement:



> The message resonates. Barnsley is 98 per cent white. Diversity and difference are not welcome here.


Just saying that white=racist. Fucking twat! 
That guy could have stood in loads of places and still lost out to nutters and the BNP, because *everyone* hates the liberal democrats.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> The main problem with this article is this statement:
> 
> 
> Just saying that white=racist. Fucking twat!
> That guy could have stood in loads of places and still lost out to nutters and the BNP, because *everyone* hates the liberal democrats.



And since when have the lib-dems had any significent support from black and Asian communities? 

And no-body seem to have told him that the BNP vote share was down.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 6, 2011)

> 'Liberal Democrat? I wouldn’t spit on you if you were on fire,’ says the middle-aged man to whom I offer my hand, his eyes menacingly warning me to keep my distance.
> Three hours later, another man catches sight of my yellow rosette and spits in my direction, narrowly missing my left shoulder. Welcome to Barnsley Central.



Welcome to the entire country you slime.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Carman (former NF member)


 
Seriously?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Mar 6, 2011)

smokedout said:


> they lost in barnsley because people in barnsley are racist apparantly
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1363388/What-like-despised-man-town-political-correctness-forgot-come-SIXTH-election.html?ito=feeds-newsxml


The Mail must really hate the liberals to have printed that.

Many people in Sheffield Hallam likely to read the Mail or work with people who do?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> Seriously?


 
Yep. Millionaire Lib-dem Dominic Carman is a former NF member. He had no ideological commitment though (he claims), he merely joined as protest at what he saw as mainstream politicians ignoring what he thought were key issues. I wonder why he doesn't apply that sort of insight to the BNP vote.


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. Millionaire Lib-dem Dominic Carman is a former NF member. He had no ideological commitment though (he claims), he merely joined as protest at what he saw as mainstream politicians ignoring what he thought were key issues. I wonder why he doesn't apply that sort of insight to the BNP vote.


 
That's just crazy! Even by libdem standards.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 6, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> That's just crazy! Even by libdem standards.


 
I've spotted an oxymoron in that statement.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. Millionaire Lib-dem Dominic Carman is a former NF member. He had no ideological commitment though (he claims), he merely joined as protest at what he saw as mainstream politicians ignoring what he thought were key issues. I wonder why he doesn't apply that sort of insight to the BNP vote.


 
hmm ... a bit of "revisionism" going on there i think, it's one thing to vote for the far-right, another thing entirely to actually join them - especially a group like the NF.


----------



## embree (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. Millionaire Lib-dem Dominic Carman is a former NF member. He had no ideological commitment though (he claims), he merely joined as protest at what he saw as mainstream politicians ignoring what he thought were key issues. I wonder why he doesn't apply that sort of insight to the BNP vote.


 
Has he said what these key issues were?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 6, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/07/dominic-carman-joined-national-front


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

Anyone know whether his claim of leaving the NF after a month is true?


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 6, 2011)

I believe him  He's not an secret NFer. He's a well meaning div in a  daze.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2010/nov/07/dominic-carman-liberal-democrats-national-front


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I believe him  He's not an secret NFer. He's a well meaning div in a  daze.



This.


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 6, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> I believe him  He's not an secret NFer. He's a well meaning div in a  daze.


 
oh, not saying that he was still a member of it after all this time!


----------



## Nylock (Mar 7, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Labour announced they would be introducing £14Bn pound worth of cuts, only £2Bn less the coalition. So no matter what party got elected you would be seeing cuts now.



As others have pointed out, the speed of the cuts programme would have differed, but you have fallen wholesale into the numbers trap that many people with a lack of imagination seem to do when confronted with large numbers. It may 'only' be 2 billion pounds in comparison to the coalition's cuts programme, but 2 billion quid is still a fuckton of money. 

For a start it would pay the daily wage for a fifth of the world's population for a day. 

It's £33 for pretty much every man woman and child in the UK. 

It's the entire 6th form education budget for a year 

It's the entire surestart budget. With change to spare.

It's 2/3rds of the research councils grant.

It's the entire Northern Ireland Office budget. With change.

It's 9x the child trust fund.

It's nearly all of the winter fuel payments budget.

It's all of the JSA budget. With change.

It's all of the statutory maternity pay budget, with the over 75's tv license subsidy on top.

It's 2/3 of the MOD's operational spending.

It's just shy of 1/3 of the entire policing budget.

It's practically the entire FCO budget.

It's the NHS' entire budget for learning difficulties.

..and so on.

I realise that a lot of the budgets i have quoted above have either been severely curtailed, wiped from existence or royally buttfucked by you lot, however, it's to put into perspective the utter abomination that you are a party to and willing participant of. 

Yes, the other parties (including yours) during the election were all warning of cuts, but the fact remains that the tories' programme was by far and away the harshest on the table. Everyone knew during the election that labour would lose due to many issues over the preceding years and thus many voted for your lot in the mistaken belief that "you" would act as a brake on the worst excesses of cameron et al. 

Clegg and co proved just how mendacious, venal, cowardly and self-serving they were once in power, despite the hopes to the contrary of those who voted for them. Many people swallowed the lies little nicky spouted to the electorate. It wont happen again.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 8, 2011)

*clapclapclapclapclap*

Brilliant post.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 9, 2011)

Nylock said:


> As others have pointed out, the speed of the cuts programme would have differed, but you have fallen wholesale into the numbers trap that many people with a lack of imagination seem to do when confronted with large numbers. It may 'only' be 2 billion pounds in comparison to the coalition's cuts programme, but 2 billion quid is still a fuckton of money.
> 
> For a start it would pay the daily wage for a fifth of the world's population for a day.
> 
> ...



Or four national census.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 9, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Or four national census.


you utter prick. Those are NEEDED public services you're weaselling on-things people NEED


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 10, 2011)

5% in the Welsh regional seat, 7% in the constituency seats.



> Regional: CON 20%(nc), LAB 45%(+4), LDEM 5%(-3), Plaid 18%(-3), UKIP 5%(+1), Green 4%(+2).
> Constituency: CON 20%(-1), LAB 48%(+3), LDEM 7%(nc), Plaid 19%(-2)


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 10, 2011)

5% oh what a glorious day.


----------



## Jeff Robinson (Mar 10, 2011)

These yellow vichyist trash will be wiped off the face of the earth.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 10, 2011)

frogwoman said:


> 5% oh what a glorious day.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 10, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> you utter prick. Those are NEEDED public services you're weaselling on-things people NEED


 
Why do you appeal to the compassion of a sociopath?


----------



## embree (Mar 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 5% in the Welsh regional seat, 7% in the constituency seats.


 
looks like the remainder of the LD rump are starting to take the hint and move to the Greens


----------



## killer b (Mar 10, 2011)

and there was me thinking they'd stalled on 10%...

Latest YouGov/Sun
CON 34%, LAB 45%, LDEM 9%
-30 approval


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 10, 2011)

One point ahead on combined ratings


----------



## killer b (Mar 10, 2011)

two.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Or four national census.


 
now and again you read of some unfortunate who has tumbled out of a window and impaled themselves on some inconveniently placed railings. it's always a disappointment when you read the reports and realise it isn't moon23


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 10, 2011)

killer b said:


> two.


 Shit i must use my toes aswell as my fingers in future


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 10, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yep. Millionaire Lib-dem Dominic Carman is a former NF member. He had no ideological commitment though (he claims), he merely joined as protest at what he saw as mainstream politicians ignoring what he thought were key issues. I wonder why he doesn't apply that sort of insight to the BNP vote.


 
apparently there are some interesting interviews he did with griffin on youtube. - he was going to write griffin's biography.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 10, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> Why do you appeal to the compassion of a sociopath?


blind optimism:my belief in humankind insists no-one can be that much of a wanker-or a cretin


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 10, 2011)

They can and they are. See exhibit Cunt.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 10, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> They can and they are. See exhibit Cunt.


Yeah. sadly, that's true.
I DON'T think ALL LDs are this awful.
a lot are simply bewildered-they _hate_ the way things have gone,are long-standing members, and they simply don't know what to do.
Leaving their party would rip a hole in their life.
But moon23 is beneath contempt-a libertarian Tory hack,of the worst kind


----------



## Nylock (Mar 11, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Or four national census.


 
Yes, you could add that to the list of stuff covered by the extra 2 billion you aresholes are fucking us all over with. 

So what's your point?


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 11, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> now and again you read of some unfortunate who has tumbled out of a window and impaled themselves on some inconveniently placed railings. it's always a disappointment when you read the reports and realise it isn't moon23


 
Really? I'm always disappointed it isn't Nick Clegg. I'm still hoping we'll find out he was on a secret junket to Sendai last night.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 11, 2011)

Lib-dems beaten by BNP again - this time in Burnley and this time from first place. 

Lab 521 (43.1; +11.8)
BNP 288 (23.8; +5.5)
LD  261 (21.6; -11.8)
Con 81 (6.7; -10.2)
Ind 58 (4.8; +4.8)

These 10+% swing from lib-dems are going to destroy them - and it's week after week after week right now - they cannpt be wished away as due to local conditions. Beaten by the BNP twice, the Greens once and the bloody NF once in a two week period.


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 13, 2011)

I wonder if they will choose this shitbag for leicester south

Aaron Porter, the outgoing president of the National Union of Students, who spearheaded protests against tuition fees rising to £9,000, is preparing to launch a bid to become Labour MP for Leicester South.

He is expected to put his name forward to become the party's candidate in the forthcoming by-election, triggered by Sir Peter Soulsby, who has a 8,800 majority, standing down. Mr Porter studied in Leicester for three years and would make "youth opportunity" central to his campaign. His main rival for selection is Jonathan Ashworth, head of party relations for Labour leader Ed Miliband. Mr Porter announced last month he would not be standing for re-election as NUS leader in April. The deadline for nominations is tomorrow.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

He has no chance, not with 14 000 full time students plus loads of part timers in the seat. Labour have managed to avoid being tainted with the feed stuff so far, they'll surely not risk being associated with by selecting this dick.


----------



## killer b (Mar 13, 2011)

fucking hell. he didn't waste any time did he. did soulsby stand down before porter announced he wasn't going to run again btw...? if so, i reckon he may have been given the nod. fucking idiots.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Scottish Polls:

Holyrood regional: CON 11%, LAB 44%, *LDEM 4%*, SNP 37%
Holyrood constituency: CON 11%, LAB 43%, *LDEM 5%*, SNP 37%


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2011)

4!


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Comres (pdf) also have them on 4% in Scotland for Westminster voting intention:

Lab 43% (+1)
Con 23% (+6)
SNP 23% (+3)
LD 4% (-15)
oth 8% (+6)


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 13, 2011)

-15


----------



## Balbi (Mar 13, 2011)

Labour: 44% (up 14 points since the general election)
Conservatives: 33% (down 4)
Lib Dems: 10% (down 14)

Labour lead: 11 points

Government approval: -30


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

For two polls running as well.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 13, 2011)

Cleggs delusional. Six weeks till the LD's get wiped off the local electoral map


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 13, 2011)

When is the leciester south by election? 
Is it the same day as the locals - jsut to give us extra joy?


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 13, 2011)

Managed to glimpse Clegg telling the conference the lib dems weren't "left or right wing but on the centre".


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 13, 2011)

Balbi said:


> Cleggs delusional. Six weeks till the LD's get wiped off the local electoral map


 
<rubs hands together in gleeful anticipation>


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> When is the leciester south by election?
> Is it the same day as the locals - jsut to give us extra joy?


 
Expected to be.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 13, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> When is the leciester south by election?
> Is it the same day as the locals - jsut to give us extra joy?



EDITED Someone already made the point about Porter. Oops!


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Labour have managed to avoid being tainted with the feed stuff so far, they'll surely not risk being associated with by selecting this dick.


One would hope not, but we all know selection panels can make some very strange decisions


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 13, 2011)

Not with Ed Miliband's best mate also standing for selection...


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Not with Ed Miliband's best mate also standing for selection...


ah yes....good point, time to play suck-up-to-Ed


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 14, 2011)

YouGov/Sun – CON 35, LAB 44, LDEM 9



> `Forward, the Light Brigade!'
> Was there a man dismay'd?
> Not tho' the soldier knew
> Some one had blunder'd:
> ...



Standing ovation - twice..


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 14, 2011)

Twice as mentally ill as the Tories.


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 14, 2011)

Can't wait for May 5th


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> Twice as mentally ill as the Tories.


 
yeh i've seen moon23's antics


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 14, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> Can't wait for May 5th


 
i'm sorry but you'll have to


----------



## Nylock (Mar 15, 2011)

7 weeks to go 
:rubs hands with glee:


----------



## Roonster (Mar 15, 2011)

How low can you go?.. campaign against tuition fees, campaign against NHS "shake up"..campaign for amnesty for immigrants.. and then do the opposite.. that is low!


----------



## moon23 (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He has no chance, not with 14 000 full time students plus loads of part timers in the seat. Labour have managed to avoid being tainted with the feed stuff so far, they'll surely not risk being associated with by selecting this dick.


 
Why would he pick a University seat? He must be an idiot.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Why would he pick a University seat? He must be an idiot.


 
The phrase 'takes one to know one' springs to mind.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## moon23 (Mar 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> you utter prick. Those are NEEDED public services you're weaselling on-things people NEED


 
£446,575,342 per day, that is how much we are getting into debt. You are the prick who thinks it's better we spent money servicing our debt interest payments than on Hospitals, Schools and services.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 15, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The phrase 'takes one to know one' springs to mind.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
It doesn't surprise me a cheap insult comes to hand, they seem the tool of your trade.


----------



## DrRingDing (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> £446,575,342 per day, that is how much we are getting into debt. You are the prick who thinks it's better we spent money servicing our debt interest payments than on Hospitals, Schools and services.


 
I didn't know the LibDems had their own versions of BushBots.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Why would he pick a University seat? He must be an idiot.


 
Still, hated though Porter is, he's still probably more popular with students than the Lib Dems.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> £446,575,342 per day, that is how much we are getting into debt. You are the prick who thinks it's better we spent money servicing our debt interest payments than on Hospitals, Schools and services.


 
OMG numbers!!

It'd odd how cuts on Hospitals, Schools and services = defence of Hospitals, Schools and services. 

_Sing cuckoo sing_


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It doesn't surprise me a *cheap insult* comes to hand, they seem the tool of your trade.


 
Why should I expend more effort than is needed, you humourless misanthrope?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Why would he pick a University seat? He must be an idiot.


 
You think he might come 6th or something and lose his deposit?


----------



## magneze (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> It'd odd how cuts on Hospitals, Schools and services = defence of Hospitals, Schools and services.


Indeed. I never realised that too much funding was the issue all along.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

magneze said:


> Indeed. I never realised that too much funding was the issue all along.



_In order to save the village, it was necessary to destroy it_


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> £446,575,342 per day, that is how much we are getting into debt. You are the prick who thinks it's better we spent money servicing our debt interest payments than on Hospitals, Schools and services.


Here's what you'd want if you weren't a tory in all but name:STEEPLY PROGRESSIVE TAXATION
Here's what you'd know if you weren't economically illiterate; Cuts = recession = _fewer_ tax receipts.
Here's what you'd also know,were you not so ignorant:1945-1970,Britain had far GREATER(inflation-adjusted) debt,more public spending-and a boom.
Yet again,you're talking utter shit


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> You think he might come 6th or something and lose his deposit?



Owch!


----------



## Balbi (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> £446,575,342 per day, that is how much we are getting into debt. You are the prick who thinks it's better we spent money servicing our debt interest payments than on Hospitals, Schools and services.


 
Nice numbers 

Shame the sentence after it makes about as much sense as your dear leaders podium thumping delusions from Sunday.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 15, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> I didn't know the LibDems had their own versions of BushBots.


One,at least


----------



## moon23 (Mar 15, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Here's what you'd want if you weren't a tory in all but name:STEEPLY PROGRESSIVE TAXATION
> Here's what you'd know if you weren't economically illiterate; Cuts = recession = _fewer_ tax receipts.
> Here's what you'd also know,were you not so ignorant:1945-1970,Britain had far GREATER(inflation-adjusted) debt,more public spending-and a boom.
> Yet again,you're talking utter shit


 
I agree taxation should be progressive, which is why I strongly support increasing the tax threshold to £10K and strongly oppose the VAT increase and inheritance tax reductions. I don't think you can simply raid corporate profits as a solution to problems though, as this would lead to exodus of business, and less capital to invest in getting the economy going.

Strong cuts can increase the likelihood of a recession, I don't think these cuts are as massive as some people make out. After all we are only plugging the deficit, not tackling existing debt. Mostly they will stabilise public spending at around 2007 levels, rather than having public spending as a percentage of GDP increase every year. However a sovereign debt crisis can also cause a recession as we saw in Greek economy. It's madness to say to say that we should just keep borrowing further if it means extending the public sector beyond the size that can be supported by the private sector. When that debt is due, you will just have to keep borrowing more and more to stimulate further spending. Eventually that credit runs out and you get a debt crisis as recent events have shown.

Also there are problems and criticisms with Keynesian economics as you must surely be aware. Leaving aside the theoretical criticisms there is a practical one, in that government spending must be spent on correcting economic problems, not just on political pet projects, or worse our burdening security & surveillance bureaucracy.


----------



## Random (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I don't think you can simply raid corporate profits as a solution to problems though, as this would lead to exodus of business, and less capital to invest in getting the economy going.


 
'Raid' what a colourful word


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

_Raiding_ our pensions. _Raiding_ our Health car. _Raiding_ our education. _Raiding_ our lifes. 

I see what you mean.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 15, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> _Raiding_ our pensions. _Raiding_ our Health car. _Raiding_ our education. _Raiding_ our lifes.
> 
> I see what you mean.



Raiding pensions is exactly what Brown did when he scrapped the tax relief on pensions funds - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=413695&in_page_id=6
But at least some of that was put to good use with the Iraq war.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23;11597527I  said:
			
		

> I don't think you can simply raid corporate profits as a solution to problems though, as this would lead to exodus of business, and less capital to invest in getting the economy going


One word;BOLLOCKS.There is ZERO historical proof that increasing taxes on the wealthy or big corporations leads to a business/capital exodus.
We are also missing out on £120BILLION taxes wecould get-and the government you support have axed the HMRC unit dedicated to targetting the wealthy



> However a sovereign debt crisis can also cause a recession as we saw in Greek economy


More bollocks;The Greek and British economies are in no way comparable


> It's madness to say to say that we should just keep borrowing further


No-one's suggesting that-the banks,big business and the wealthy should pay to pump-prime the British Economy


> in that government spending must be spent on correcting economic problems


like an imminent recession


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 15, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Raiding pensions is exactly what Brown did when he scrapped the tax relief on pensions funds - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=413695&in_page_id=6
> But at least some of that was put to good use with the Iraq war.


 
What a naughty boy. I must then support you and your parties deepening of such behaviour. You moral cretin. More raiding!


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 16, 2011)

Latest YouGov/Sun results 15th Mar CON 35%, LAB 45%, LD 9%; APP -28

http://today.yougov.co.uk/


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2011)

it's a shame we can't have the yougov twitter feed updating directly to the thread. that way our precious posts could be reserved for gloating.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 16, 2011)

The slimes keep bleating on about 'its only reducing spending to 2007 levels' - its utterly disengneuous. they talking not about the amount of spending - but the amount as a proportion of GDP. As the economy has shrunk since 2007, reducing public spending to that proportion of GDP means a significent net _reduction_ in spending on 2007 levels.

Addtionally its all being front loaded into the next 12-18 months for reasons of electrol calculus - with the result that jobs and services are being decimated throughout the country especially in the most deprived areas of the country. This will also have a huge knock on effect to service industries in those areas - leading to more job losses and misery. 

This is peoples lives moon you cunt - you are shitting on people, ruining communities, destroying futures - for the benefit of the already  obscenely wealthy. And then bullshitting about the reasons and hiding from the consequnces. 

Beneath contempt.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 16, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> Latest YouGov/Sun results 15th Mar CON 35%, LAB 45%, LD 9%; APP -28
> 
> http://today.yougov.co.uk/



The interesting thing about the yougov polling is that the sort of people that register with it, are the sort of people on the whole from where the Libdems draw a large part of their natural constituency. 

I really don't think we can underestimate how badly they're going to do on May 5th, it will come down to Tory tactical voting in Labour/Libdem marginals that saves them, nothing else.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Mar 16, 2011)

Lib Dems would have a shitload of vulnerable seats in municipal elections too, right? I mean most of what they picked up over the last decade was from Labour...


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Lib Dems would have a shitload of vulnerable seats in municipal elections too, right? I mean most of what they picked up over the last decade was from Labour...


Quite a few Tory seats as well.
It would be even worse for them if London had municipals this year,rather than 2014.Either way,uncle Ken must be rubbing his hands in glee


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Raiding pensions is exactly what Brown did when he scrapped the tax relief on pensions funds - http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=413695&in_page_id=6
> But at least some of that was put to good use with the Iraq war.


 
Well done with the use of a 5 year-old, partisan _Daily Mail_ article to support your claim about "raids".

You are, of course, aware, that pension funds, for a very tiny hit on their own profits, could have covered the loss to savers, but chose not to?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> One word;BOLLOCKS.There is ZERO historical proof that increasing taxes on the wealthy or big corporations leads to a business/capital exodus.



Loads of chatter about how big firms/"20% of companies"/everybody and his dog were going to leave, totally unfulfilled according to the financial press that spewed this crap in the first place.



> We are also missing out on £120BILLION taxes wecould get-and the government you support have axed the HMRC unit dedicated to targetting the wealthy



Yeah, but that was an honest mistake, wasn't it? 




> More bollocks;The Greek and British economies are in no way comparable



Moon *knows* this. We've been through the whole thing about how there are very few similarities *dozens* of times, but he's like a dog returning to its' vomit.



> No-one's suggesting that-the banks,big business and the wealthy should pay to pump-prime the British Economy



He's quite wrong, you know, and so are you. We have a triple A rating that's extremely unlikely, in fact vanishingly unlikely to be down-graded, *however much* business OR individual economic illiterates like moon try to talk it down. Borrowing at low cost, which is what we're able to do, is eminently sensible for pump-priming, as is nullifying the decrease in CT.



> like an imminent recession


 
Thing is, pet-molesters like moon don't accept the cause of imminent recession as the cause of imminent recession. it can't possibly be the coalition's inept handling of the reins of finance, or their blundering policies, it's got to be something else, preferably something related to the last govt. Something like spending, maybe...


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

> The slimes keep bleating on about 'its only reducing spending to 2007 levels' - its utterly disengneuous. they talking not about the amount of spending - but the amount as a proportion of GDP. As the economy has shrunk since 2007, reducing public spending to that proportion of GDP means a significent net reduction in spending on 2007 levels.



Have you seen this chart?








> This is peoples lives moon you cunt - you are shitting on people, ruining communities, destroying futures - for the benefit of the already  obscenely wealthy. And then bullshitting about the reasons and hiding from the consequnces.
> 
> Beneath contempt.



I know it is, which is why we need to tackle the structural deficit and get the economy back on track. We need to do everything we can to encourage the private sector and get the British economy growing again. 

Whilst doing this we also need to protect as many front-line services as possible. This is what Lib-Dem councils have been doing up and down the country. That's why no Lib-Dem council is shutting a single sure-start centre, why we have secured the pupil premium to ensure the most disadvantaged kids get extra help in a time of hardship. It's also why we have campaigned to get the tax threshold raised to bring millions of people out of paying income tax all together. 

Say what you like about the Lib Dems, but we are not the one's that created this fucking mess in the first place.


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Say what you like about the Lib Dems


 
They are cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Say what you like about the Lib Dems, but we are not the one's that created this fucking mess in the first place.



Yes, you are.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

> Thing is, pet-molesters like moon don't accept the cause of imminent recession as the cause of imminent recession. it can't possibly be the coalition's inept handling of the reins of finance, or their blundering policies, it's got to be something else, preferably something related to the last govt. Something like spending, maybe...


 
What? We were in recession before the coalition even came into power and we are not in a recession at the moment. You can't possibly suggest the economic crisis is the fault of the coalition?

Borrowing is one short-term approach to getting yourself out of a recession but it has long-term impact. The debts that a country takes on have to be repaid, and that means that an increasing amount of our GDP is spent on serving debt.  Keynesian economics ends up like a pyramid scheme, having to take on increasing amounts of debt.  When the credit eventually dries up you are in trouble as the economy has been built around public sector borrowing, financial services and a public sector that is too large to be supported by our taxation receipts.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, you are.


 
This is delusional beyond belief.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

Santino said:


> They are cunts.


 
Yea we are cunts for working our arses off to pass a council budget that only saw a handful of staff losing their jobs, and front-line services protected.  Unlike Labour who have been happy to cut left right and centre and blame it all on the national restrictions.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Whilst doing this we also need to protect as many front-line services as possible. This is what Lib-Dem councils have been doing up and down the country. That's why no Lib-Dem council is shutting a single sure-start centre *1*, why we have secured the pupil premium to ensure the most disadvantaged kids get extra help in a time of hardship *2*. It's also why we have campaigned to get the tax threshold raised to bring millions of people out of paying income tax all together.*3*
> 
> 
> Say what you like about the Lib Dems, but we are not the one's that created this fucking mess in the first place.


 
Oh my god, that's almost word for word what Clegg said Sunday. moon's actually Clegg 

1. No, because they got hammered by central party not to. The money went out of OTHER less trumpeted front line services instead.

2. Which won't actually do that, and combined with the SEN changes will mean less money for schools in difficult catchments (like mine)

3. That's equality. Making sure the poorest pay no tax, just like the richest


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea we are cunts for working our arses off to pass a council budget that only saw a handful of staff losing their jobs, and front-line services protected.  Unlike Labour who have been happy to cut left right and centre and blame it all on the national restrictions.


 
What did you cut?


----------



## Crispy (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Have you seen this chart?


 
Yeah, it doesn't have a single downward year-on-year change, no matter the state of the UK economy at the time.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> He's quite wrong, you know, and so are you. We have a triple A rating that's extremely unlikely, in fact vanishingly unlikely to be down-graded, *however much* business OR individual economic illiterates like moon try to talk it down. Borrowing at low cost, which is what we're able to do, is eminently sensible for pump-priming, as is nullifying the decrease in CT.


actually,you're right,a combination of low-interest borrowing AND taxing the wealthy and the corporates more would do the trick


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Whilst doing this we also need to protect as many front-line services as possible. This is what Lib-Dem councils have been doing up and down the country. That's why no Lib-Dem council is shutting a single sure-start centre, why we have secured the pupil premium to ensure the most disadvantaged kids get extra help in a time of hardship. It's also why we have campaigned to get the tax threshold raisedSay what you like about the Lib Dems, but we are not the one's that created this fucking mess in the first place to bring millions of people out of paying income tax all together.


ALL of your councils are not in areas of the greatest social deprivation-they have it easy,financially.AND the "pupil premium" was NOT funded by an increase in the overall Education budget-you simply shafted one lot to fund another



> Say what you like about the Lib Dems, but we are not the one's that created this fucking mess in the first place


No-for the UMPTEENTH FUCKING TIME...it was the BANKS.
The same banks you've just limply capitulated to (see;Merlin)


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

Crispy said:


> Yeah, it doesn't have a single downward year-on-year change, no matter the state of the UK economy at the time.


 
Which is why it's meaningless to talk of total  gross spending in cash terms. It doesn't take into account inflation or how it relates to GDP which is required if you want to think about per capita spending. That's why people talk about percentage of spending to GDP as an indicator of public spending levels. 

in 2015 the coalition will be spending the same on DLA as it does now. However as people know there are plans to cut the mobility allowance (that I disagree with). Also due to inflation and a rising population and GDP this will equate to a real-term cut.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Borrowing is one short-term approach to getting yourself out of a recession but it has long-term impact. The debts that a country takes on have to be repaid, and that means that an increasing amount of our GDP is spent on serving debt.  Keynesian economics ends up like a pyramid scheme, having to take on increasing amounts of debt.  When the credit eventually dries up you are in trouble as the economy has been built around public sector borrowing, financial services and a public sector that is too large to be supported by our taxation receipts.


Oh really? Ever heard of FDR?The New Deal?
Remind me which country came out of the Great Depression best,O tory twat


----------



## DotCommunist (Mar 16, 2011)

heh. and to think some of those displaced dust bowl refugee communities were run basically as _collectives_. The horror, the horror


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> What? We were in recession before the coalition even came into power and we are not in a recession at the moment. You can't possibly suggest the economic crisis is the fault of the coalition?


We are on the way back to recession RIGHT NOW.With *2.5 million* unemployed


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> ALL of your councils are not in areas of the greatest social deprivation-they have it easy,financially.AND the "pupil premium" was NOT funded by an increase in the overall Education budget-you simply shafted one lot to fund another



It was protected from cuts thought Streathamite, which in a time of hardship when everyone is feeling the pain of the recession is a good thing. The pupil premium is about ensuring that the poorest are protected and that children on free school meals don't suffer as a result. It's a good thing.




> No-for the UMPTEENTH FUCKING TIME...it was the BANKS.
> The same banks you've just limply capitulated to (see;Merlin)


 
I'm not saying Labour were responsible for the banking crisis. You could argue they should have done more to regulate it and foresee it coming but I think that's a bit unfair on Balls. I doubt any government in power would have done things that differently.

All I am saying is that when we entered the crisis our deficit was already amongst the highest in the G7. This wasn't the case in the early 2000s, Labour's spending left us in a situation where it was harder to borrow money as a Keynesian economic model would suggest. If you look at other countries e.g. Germany they had far less debt going into the crisis and as such were able to pump more money into the economy. In this regard Labour are partially to blame for our sluggish recovery and the need now to take action to avoid a sovereign debt crisis. 

Even Labour recognised we would need £14Bn of cuts when they were in power. It's only really the Greens and Trots who think you can simply tax your way out of the problem.


----------



## Santino (Mar 16, 2011)

It is bleakly amusing that a lot of people think the cuts have already gone too far when they've barely even begun. I would put money on the Lib Dems being at 5% nationally before the end of the year.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> We are on the way back to recession RIGHT NOW.With *2.5 million* unemployed


 
Are you related to Ed Miliband? this is precisely the sort of economic scaremongering that discourages growth.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

Santino said:


> It is bleakly amusing that a lot of people think the cuts have already gone too far when they've barely even begun. I would put money on the Lib Dems being at 5% nationally before the end of the year.


 
Labour were right this term in government was a poisoned chalice. As Clegg said, no one enters politics to balance the books. I don't enjoy being a Lib Dem much when faced with such a bleak budget, but I do take heart at the things the party is doing to make Britain more liberal.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Are you related to Ed Miliband? this is precisely the sort of economic scaremongering that discourages growth.


 
Rather than removing billions from the economy?

Fucks sake, it's actually worse that anyone realises.

The govt. are insisting the private sector can take all the job losses from the public, when the private sectors going to be creamed by the sudden income drop experienced by many public sector workers. Revenue streams for council and government drop as a result, the cut in frontline services put areas into a spiral of poverty and despair as the larger number of unemployed have access to a smaller and smaller group of services. Then the benefit 'restructuring' kicks in and everyones working for a minimum wage that would have been 'minimum' before all the damned inflation and interest rate rises. No-one from these areas goes to university, as most are attempting to keep their heads above water.

The private sector, in the mean time, has flourished. Well, the financial sector has which drags the rest along with it. Rising local business rates finally nail many high streets, and tesco divvys up the country (good source of employment!). Then the bubble bursts again for the financial sector. But there's no public services left to cut. They were to blame last time.

Wat do?


----------



## magneze (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Are you related to Ed Miliband? this is precisely the sort of economic scaremongering that discourages growth.


LOL

That's probably the funniest thing I've read in the politics forum for a while.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 16, 2011)

moon's going to go all scanners on May 6th

"but, BUT, BUT, bbbbbbbbbbbbbuuttt, it wasn't our FAULT!" *kerpowsplat*


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It was protected from cuts thought Streathamite, which in a time of hardship when everyone is feeling the pain of the recession is a good thing. The pupil premium is about ensuring that the poorest are protected and that children on free school meals don't suffer as a result. It's a good thing.


utter fucking sophistry.
If you shift money without increasing the overall spend,you're shafting SOMEONE'S education.
Full stop


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2011)

i wonder what the historical precedents of cutting in a recession teach us?


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Are you related to Ed Miliband? this is precisely the sort of economic scaremongering that discourages growth.


Oh,my heaving sides....Those are government unemployment figures Moon23,out today
e2a:and spending cuts encourage growth?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Are you related to Ed Miliband? this is precisely the sort of economic scaremongering that discourages growth.


 
I see you chickened out of the other thread.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yea we are cunts for working our arses off to pass a council budget that only saw a handful of staff losing their jobs, and front-line services protected.  Unlike Labour who have been happy to cut left right and centre and blame it all on the national restrictions.


 
more lies, have a look at what is happening in Birmingham


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> utter fucking sophistry.
> If you shift money without increasing the overall spend,you're shafting SOMEONE'S education.
> Full stop


 
Your ensuring in a time of hardship that those who need help the most get it.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> I see you chickened out of the other thread.


 
Not at all, I just don't have the time to post on all the threads at the same time.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

Balbi said:


> moon's going to go all scanners on May 6th
> 
> "but, BUT, BUT, bbbbbbbbbbbbbuuttt, it wasn't our FAULT!" *kerpowsplat*


 
I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Your ensuring in a time of hardship that those who need help the most get it.


EVERYBODY in full-time(or part-time)education "needs help"


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


This really is your morning for comedy


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


 
You just make sure you keep the receipt for that bottle of bubbly eh?


----------



## BigTom (Mar 16, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> more lies, have a look at what is happening in Birmingham



Yep, lets take a few examples from this tory/lib dem coalition: 
2,450 jobs to go this year (7,000 over 3 years), 
£51m cut from adult care services, removing all care from adults with "substantial" care needs (4,200 lose all care iirc, 11,000 lose either all or part of their care), 
youth srvices budget cut by £3m ending 40% of youth services,
childrens care budget is being cut but I really can't remember how much by - this affects looked after children 
120 redundnacies + all bar one office closure for connexions, half of neighbourhood offices planned to close (so basically destroying free advice services, esp. if CAB precarious state ends with them closing)

That's off the top of my head, amy have got some figures slightly wrong but the impact of the cuts is on front line services to the most vulnerable - adults and children with care needs.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Not at all, I just don't have the time to post on all the threads at the same time.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


----------



## DrRingDing (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Have you seen this chart?


 
...but have you taken into account inflation?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 16, 2011)

DrRingDing said:


> ...but have you taken into account inflation?


 
That was point I was making, total growth is meaningless. You have to look at spending in relation to GDP.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

and if you plot it in relation to GDP?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 16, 2011)

Thats why its deliberately missleading to go on about 'only reducing spending to 2007' levels without mentioning 'as a proportion of gdp'. like you and your fellow friedmanite tory cunts have been.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 16, 2011)

Um, Moon. What you need to do is adjust the government spending figures to some kind of base unit using the inflation figures (2011 pounds would seem like a sensible option in this case) - then see what happens to the line.

Saying that the only sensible comparison to make is with GDP is a complete load of tosh, and I suspect you know it.


----------



## co-op (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.





Good luck with that you tory stooge.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 16, 2011)

Oh, and you'll probably want to also factor in the increase in population. So use the population figures for each of the years above to give you a nice chart of "Annual public expenditure per capita (adjusted to 2011 pounds)".

I'd do it myself, only I work in a cancer research lab, and I can't hep but think I'd be better off getting back to work.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


 
...and I'll be selling some stories to the papers.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


 
Where are you standing?


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

I'd donate to the campaign of his Labour oppo,tbh


----------



## killer b (Mar 16, 2011)

A delusional lib dem urbanite standing for council? That doesn't normally end well, does it?


----------



## Balbi (Mar 16, 2011)

Cue moon complaining about the Tory government making them implement frontline cuts on May 6th


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


 
Good luck with that lol


----------



## Combustible (Mar 16, 2011)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Oh, and you'll probably want to also factor in the increase in population. So use the population figures for each of the years above to give you a nice chart of "Annual public expenditure per capita (adjusted to 2011 pounds)".
> 
> I'd do it myself, only I work in a cancer research lab, and I can't hep but think I'd be better off getting back to work.


 
And if the issue is debt you also want to factor in increased tax receipts.  Now if you look at the trend of public debt as a % of GDP...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> the government you support have axed the HMRC unit dedicated to targetting the wealthy


 
Have you got a link for that? I'm not disputing it, it's just one more thing I can use against my Lib Dem apologist sister.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Have you got a link for that? I'm not disputing it, it's just one more thing I can use against my Lib Dem apologist sister.


I'll have a hunt round for you


----------



## Balbi (Mar 16, 2011)

Combustible said:


> And if the issue is debt you also want to factor in increased tax receipts.  Now if you look at the trend of public debt as a % of GDP...


 
Look at that boom in 2008. I'm amazed the public sector needed a near on doubling of cash to keep it going. Oh wait, they didn't - the public sector's had increased revenue but the majority of the debt was aimed at Northern Rock, RBS etc. 

So the structural debt's actually a creation of the Banking institutions, rather than the essential public services.

Luckily we've managed to get back that money through ensuring the publicly owned banks pay back a share of profits and high risk transactions, and taxing bonuses appropriately until the debt's been settled. Or not.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 16, 2011)

Tell me about wealth creation, moon.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Have you got a link for that? I'm not disputing it, it's just one more thing I can use against my Lib Dem apologist sister.


Transpires I got it only half-right -they arecutting it by 20%,with more to come(a birdie tells me)


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> What? We were in recession before the coalition even came into power...



The one triggered by the "credit crunch" and the bail-outs? That's not really credible, given that it wasn't a function of the usual recessionary pressures, but rather of "credit crunch"-inspired non-investment and purchasing, and resolved itself quickly.



> ...and we are not in a recession at the moment.



Are you unable to read? I said "imminent recession".

You know, the one that's imminent given that a year of slash and burn on spending has had a negative effect on economic growth. 

Simple economics - Higher unemployment = lower spending = less impetus for growth.  



> You can't possibly suggest the economic crisis is the fault of the coalition?



I haven't done so, I've very clearly stated that the *coming* economic crisis will be the fault of the coalition.




> Borrowing is one short-term approach to getting yourself out of a recession but it has long-term impact.



More economic illiteracy. Borrowing's impact is predicated on the conditions of borrowing. 

Now, what sort of borrowing conditions does a country with a triple A credit rating have applied to them?



> The debts that a country takes on have to be repaid...



You don't say!  



> ...and that means that an increasing amount of our GDP is spent on serving debt.



The phrase is "*servicing* debt", and your claim of an increasing percentage of GDP being taken up would only apply to a stagnant economy. Are you know acknowledging that the likely outcome of the coalitions' cuts is a stagnant economy?



> Keynesian economics ends up like a pyramid scheme, having to take on increasing amounts of debt.



Not it doesn't, because the idea (as ably proven over the last 80 or so years) is to use borrowing to fund infrastructure development, development that, in terms of facilitating commerce, generally pays for itself over the medium term.

So, any increased debt is short-term, and (given the UK's credit status) cheap. 



> When the credit eventually dries up you are in trouble as the economy has been built around public sector borrowing, financial services and a public sector that is too large to be supported by our taxation receipts.


 
Please quantify the following:

1) To what extent the "economy has been built around public sector borrowing". A percentage will do.

2) To what degree the public sector is "too large".

3) How you arrived at the conclusion that our tax receipts cannot/will not be able to support the size of the public sector.

I want proper answers, please, not your usual waffle.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Oh really? Ever heard of FDR?The New Deal?
> Remind me which country came out of the Great Depression best,O tory twat


 
Moon obviously knows better than academic economic historians and economists how well Keynesianism worked. History is wrong!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Are you related to Ed Miliband? this is precisely the sort of economic scaremongering that discourages growth.


 
Don't talk bollocks, there's a good halfwit.

Do you really believe that economic growth is influenced by an observation by an opposition politician, rather than influenced by the *policies* of the government, and its' own analysis of the economy?

You're already fucking dead.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> ... but I do take heart at the things the party is doing to make Britain more liberal.


 
The amount of mental gymnastics it must take to believe this statement (in your definition of "liberal") either makes you very ill or a liar. Obviously you're a liar who is _very_ mentally ill.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Please quantify the following:
> 
> 1) To what extent the "economy has been built around public sector borrowing". A percentage will do.
> 
> ...


Actually,I'd rather like answers to these too....


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Moon obviously knows better than academic economic historians and economists how well Keynesianism worked. History is wrong!


yes,I think that IS his thought processes,scarily


----------



## poisondwarf (Mar 16, 2011)

Nothing to add about economics, as I don't know much but I had the misfortune to go and see my local lib dem councillor about a delicate matter on Monday evening. After I had given him a bit of a ribbing about how people really didn't like them, he proceeded to tell me how when they did the negotiations last May, Labour acted like children who were taking their ball away but the Tories were very professional and businesslike.  I would have loved to have chatted a bit more to him about his delusions but I had other stuff to do.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Mar 16, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Where are you standing?



In a corner, looking a bit baffled.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Transpires I got it only half-right -they arecutting it by 20%,with more to come(a birdie tells me)


 
Thanks, that'll do nicely. I read somewhere that for every £1 they spend on tax investigation they get something like £35 back, so 20% is more than enough. This can't possibly be a cost saving cut - it's a help those nice people who fund our party cut and a bleeding obvious one at that.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 16, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Thanks, that'll do nicely. I read somewhere that for every £1 they spend on tax investigation they get something like £35 back, so 20% is more than enough. This can't possibly be a cost saving cut - it's a help those nice people who fund our party cut and a bleeding obvious one at that.


absolutely.
That website's useful too


----------



## William of Walworth (Mar 16, 2011)

Streathamite said:
			
		

> That website's useful too



It's thoroughly excellent! Bookmarking it...


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 16, 2011)

killer b said:


> A delusional lib dem urbanite standing for council? That doesn't normally end well, does it?


 
The last one was liampreston and we remember what happened there he bottled out and resigned


----------



## frogwoman (Mar 16, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


 
yeah right


----------



## Nylock (Mar 17, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 17, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Where are you standing?


 
1972


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Mar 17, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'll be celebrating my successful election to office.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 18, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> Transpires I got it only half-right -they arecutting it by 20%,with more to come(a birdie tells me)



In passing:



> Three years ago parliament’s public accounts committee was critical of the taxman’s failure to extract penalties from tax dodging multinationals after learning that it penalised companies dealt with by it large business service “in only 19 cases, totalling £15 million”. This was around 0.6% of under-declared tax and HMRC promised to try harder in future.
> 
> Figures obtained by the Eye under freedom of information laws show the position is now dramatically worse. In 2009/10 just 6 penalties were charged totaling £442,000 or less; and as this financial year draws to a close “fewer than five” penalties have been charged for just £322,000. These figures represent less than 0.01% of tax under-declared. The rate for smaller businesses is about two hundred times this figure.
> 
> Treasury select committee chairman Andrew Tyrie said last week that HMRC was "close to being a failing institution" in light of other cock-ups. When it comes to taxing big business, it's already there."


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 18, 2011)

That is scandalous


----------



## DeadRussian (Mar 18, 2011)

moon23 said:


> but I do take heart at the things the party is doing to make Britain more liberal.


 
what? like the policy review led by Lib Dem Lord Carlile saying lecturers need to monitor students for signs of "radicalisation"?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12752173


----------



## Voley (Mar 21, 2011)

Liberal Democrat South West support in slump ahead of poll

17% drop in popularity since the election according to the article.



> Support for the Liberal Democrats has crashed in its South West heartlands since the general election, startling new polling data has shown.
> 
> A 17 per cent fall in support since the May 6 ballot underlines how voters in the region are deserting the party in the wake of the coalition with the Conservatives.





> Lib Dem support, suffering from the student protests that followed abandoning a pledge to scrap tuition fees, is now just 18 per cent in the region, down from 35 per cent.


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 21, 2011)

The south west is their power base they returned mp,s even in the sixties


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 21, 2011)

DeadRussian said:


> what? like the policy review led by Lib Dem Lord Carlile saying lecturers need to monitor students for signs of "radicalisation"?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12752173


 
about time to


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 22, 2011)

Lib-dem wipeout in the South west (their stronghold remember) is in the post:




> Voting intention in the South West (with changes from the vote shares in 2010) currently stands at CON 39%(-4), LAB 29%(+14), LDEM 18%(-17), UKIP 6%(+1), GRN 6%(+5).
> 
> The pattern is broadly the same as the country as a whole, with Liberal Democrat support collapsing towards Labour. With a drop of 17 points the Lib Dem drop is larger than in national polls… but the Lib Dems had more support here to start with. Also noteworthy is the significant boost for the Greens, who also seem to have benefitted from the Lib Dem drop.
> 
> ...



Thornbury and Yate, and Bath are already gone - 100%. Yeovil is the only one they'll keep - thanks to Paddy's good husbandry, not any love of the thief David Laws.


----------



## Voley (Mar 22, 2011)

A drop of 17% in a former stronghold. Awesome.


----------



## BigTom (Mar 22, 2011)

Yeah, shit day today, at least there's something to make me smile.  If they are dropping that much in SW they'll be wiped out everywhere else.  Roll on may 5th for the lolz


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 22, 2011)

such a shame London doesn't do council elections until 2114.
They'd be massacred in SWLondon


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

DeadRussian said:


> what? like the policy review led by Lib Dem Lord Carlile saying lecturers need to monitor students for signs of "radicalisation"?
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12752173


 
Lord Carlile is an authoritarian idiot, he doesn't deserve to be in a party that calls it'self Liberal.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Lord Carlile is an authoritarian idiot, he doesn't deserve to be in a party that calls it'self Liberal.


 
I think he opitomises modern liberalism. If you're not a neoliberal extremist you're a dangerous extremist. Stop the extremists!


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Lord Carlile is an authoritarian idiot, he doesn't deserve to be in a party that calls it'self Liberal.


 
Are you gonna explain how "poverty is not unfreedom"? From this thread
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...ying-that-EDL-members-freedoms-are-restricted


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Are you gonna explain how "poverty is not unfreedom"? From this thread
> http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/th...ying-that-EDL-members-freedoms-are-restricted


 
Because you can be poor and free or rich and imprison. That's not to say that poverty is something desirable of course, but neither is a planned economy the best way to eliminate it. The best way to eliminate poverty is with a largely free market that contains a social welfare net.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Mar 22, 2011)

why is poverty undesirable, in your eyes, moon?


----------



## weepiper (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Because you can be poor and free


 
free to do what?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

weepiper said:


> free to do what?


 
Whatever they like


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 22, 2011)

farce23 said:


> The best way to eliminate poverty is with a largely free market that contains a social welfare net.


 
There are no words.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

Jon-of-arc said:


> why is poverty undesirable, in your eyes, moon?


 
Some people may desire it but I think it's undesirable as it causes hardship and suffering.


----------



## audiotech (Mar 22, 2011)

Free to starve.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> There are no words.


 
Productivity and enterprise flourish in free markets, and that means a wealthier economy that can support the taxation required to provide a safety net.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Free to starve.


 
More people starve under planned economies. Free people are far more likely to be able to feed themselves then those who are not free.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 22, 2011)

Jesus moon where do you get this shit from?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

Belushi said:


> Jesus moon where do you get this shit from?


 
What? I honestly think people are best of looking after themselves, sure we can intervene when people are starving to help. We can give people the tools they need, but we don't need government's to feed us do we???


----------



## weepiper (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Whatever they like


 
I'm not sure they like having relentlessly depressing lives with no hope of meaningful improvement and dying young.


----------



## binka (Mar 22, 2011)

have you always thought like this moon or have you found your outlook on life changing in perhaps the last 8-12 months?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> What? I honestly think people are best of looking after themselves, sure we can intervene when people are starving to help. We can give people the tools they need, but we don't need government's to feed us do we???


 
i wouldn't intervene if i found you starving to death. fyi.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 22, 2011)

I wonder how chips-for-brains23 defines "safety net" in his magical world where free enterprise flourishing in the meadows and foothills has eliminated poverty. I'm not going to bother asking how he defines "productivity", since we all know he's a liberal sociopath.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 22, 2011)

A fine example of people being fed well under a planned economy - http://www.russiablog.org/2009/11/ukraines_historic_famine_shown.php


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> I wonder how chips-for-brains23 defines "safety net" in his magical world where free enterprise flourishing in the meadows and foothills has eliminated poverty. I'm not going to bother asking how he defines "productivity", since we all know he's a liberal sociopath.


 
you mean he's a twat.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 22, 2011)

That's what I said.


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> A fine example of people being fed well under a planned economy - http://www.russiablog.org/2009/11/ukraines_historic_famine_shown.php


 
so what about the irish famine? was that the result of a planned economy? i think not...


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> That's what I said.


 
yeh but you were wordy as fuck, refused as fuck.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> A fine example of people being fed well under a planned economy - http://www.russiablog.org/2009/11/ukraines_historic_famine_shown.php


 
If you like Communism so much why don't you go live there? LOL


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> If you like Communism so much why don't you go live there? LOL


 
say what you like about old stalin, but he'd have sorted out moon23 in a trice.


----------



## Belushi (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> A fine example of people being fed well under a planned economy - http://www.russiablog.org/2009/11/ukraines_historic_famine_shown.php


 
Shall I post up pics of te Bengal famine? Same era, free market.


----------



## Roadkill (Mar 22, 2011)

moon23 said:


> More people starve under planned economies. Free people are far more likely to be able to feed themselves then those who are not free.


 
Jesus Christ, you really are as stupid as you seem, aren't you?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

binka said:


> have you always thought like this moon or have you found your outlook on life changing in perhaps the last 8-12 months?


 
Funny you should ask that, I clicked on the Monbiot thread to an old discussion about the SWP. I found Moon having this exchange:



Zachor said:


> To be quite frank Rod that used to be my opinion.  You wouldn't have seen me put my cross next to a Tory name on a ballot paper from the age of 18 in the early 80's right up to 2001.
> 
> Experience has taught me that freedom of thought and action coupled with a desire to co-operate with others voluntarily to help those who cannot help themselves is a much better way of running a society than a centrally run dictatorship where everything is forbidden unless the government say it is permitted.





moon23 said:


> There is a happy medium. For instance in the Victorian age before the welfare state when social care relied on philanthropy, it was not wonderful.  Hoping that those people who benefit from other’s labour will give a small proportion of  their profits back to support say local hospitals is not a good way to run society. Philanthropy is not better than the welfare state. If you have too few laws then society becomes a dictatorship run by those with the money, capital and power.





Zachor said:


> Disagree and agree with you to some extent.    The freedom to make money went hand in hand with freedom to challenge and reexamine many other parts of life and society.  Freeing up people to trade also freed people to think differently whether this was Thatchers original intention it was however the end result.





moon23 said:


> Yea i'm sure all those tortured by Pincochet would agree with you there.





Zachor said:


> Its still strong arm statism whether or not you define it is left.
> 
> I did a little rough count up the other day but NL have introduced more Acts to control people than were introduced to Reform the Church under Henry VIII.
> 
> Frightening.


 



moon23 said:


> Yes but it's strong arm statism that is needed to prop up a neo-liberal society in order that capital can move freely from the people’s who’s lives it screws over. Neo-Liberal polices are enforced by the power of the state, hence why you saw thousands of cops beating miners.  Neo-Labours statism has gone hand in hand with a raft of privatization and PFI. The idea of a small government and personal freedom under a free-market is nothing more than a myth put out by those who benefit financially.



I wonder what might have happened in the time between him writing that and the misanthropic shite he's spewing now? Did he join an organisation? Maybe a cult-like one where he drank gallons of the proverbial Kool-Aid?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Funny you should ask that, I clicked on the Monbiot thread to an old discussion about the SWP. I found Moon having this exchange:
> 
> I wonder what might have happened in the time between him writing that and the misanthropic shite he's spewing now? Did he join an organisation? Maybe a cult-like one where he drank gallons of the proverbial Kool-Aid?


 
i can't be the only one who'd love to see moon23 drink some of that old jonestown refreshment


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> i can't be the only one who'd love to see moon23 drink some of that old jonestown refreshment


 
You are definitely not the only one. In his case rather than being an experiment in communal living it would have to be an experimental Randian objectivist micro-society but the lulz would not be affected by this change.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 22, 2011)

old moon23 said:


> The idea of a small government and personal freedom under a free-market is nothing more than a myth put out by those who benefit financially.


 
Lol.

What the fuck happened Moon? You met somebody you wanted to fuck who was a card carrying Whig? Somebody from Class War called you a cunt? You inherited a few quid?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

Proper Tidy said:


> Somebody from Class War called you a cunt?


 people from every walk of life, and pretty much all political persuasions, have called moon a cunt on more than one occasion.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 22, 2011)

My money's on a frontal lobotomy


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 22, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> My money's on a frontal lobotomy


 
why waste good nhs money when all it takes is one of the inventive ways of ridding ourselves of this loon?


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 22, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> people from every walk of life, and pretty much all political persuasions, have called moon a cunt on more than one occasion.


 
I actually met somebody on a stall once who gave me a mouthful, and when I calmed him down he said he'd despised teh Left ever since, allegedly, his mate got battered at uni by somebody from Class War for being posh. I don't think my snigger helped the situation. He didn't buy a paper.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2011)

Pickman's model said:


> why waste good nhs money when all it takes is one of the inventive ways of ridding ourselves of this loon?


 
Sorry, should have quoted the post I was replying to (ProperTidy's one) - was trying to guess what caused him to change his views so drastically.


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2011)

cheers for that SpineyNorman, i was half guessing he'd had a radical rethink of his politics. using the power of the search facility, specific key words and the all important 'posts a made a year ago and older' i found this gem:

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/309648-Describe-your-politics!/page7



moon23 said:


> Economic Left/Right: -7.75
> Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.87


 


Blagsta said:


> So what you doing in the Lib Dems?





moon23 said:


> Trying to faciliate democratic reform and infulence mainstream public opinon.



gone native?



butchersapron said:


> What's that got to do with the lib-dems?
> 
> You're in for a big disappointment.


 
why does no one listen to wise old butchersapron until its too late?


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 23, 2011)




----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2011)

havent had time to read it yet but i should imagine this topic will be extremely quote worthy
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/threads/309604-Just-joined-Lib-Dems


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 23, 2011)

binka said:


> cheers for that SpineyNorman, i was half guessing he'd had a radical rethink of his politics.



No problem, I aim to please


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 23, 2011)

TBF all he's done is backed the wrong horse. This time next year he'll be in the "Liberal" wing of the Euro-Tories.


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> You agree with the Orange Book clique that currently run the party?


 


moon23 said:


> no


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2011)

audiotech said:


> They lib-dems joined forces with the tories in their attacks on the pay and conditions of refuse workers here. Fuck 'em and anyone who joins these opportunist jokers.





moon23 said:


> Yes Leeds city council is an embarrassment, it's a Tory, Independent and Lib Dem coalition but the leader is Lib Dem. That’s their local policy, not national strategy.  most Lib dems I know are disgusted by it too.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 23, 2011)

And in 30 years, after eating all the pies, he'll be this:


----------



## moon23 (Mar 23, 2011)

Yes, I used to be a lot more left wing then I am now.


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, I used to be a lot more left wing then I am now.





moon23 said:


> The idea of a small government and personal freedom under a free-market is nothing more than a myth put out by those who benefit financially.



You disagree with this now? And why? What happened?


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, I used to be a lot more left wing then I am now.


 
do you remember roughly at what point between the end of 2009 / beginning of 2010 and now that you suddenly stopped being left wing?


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 23, 2011)

Refused as fuck said:


> And in 30 years, after eating all the pies, he'll be this:


 
If he gets any fatter he will explode !!fat bastard!!


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, I used to be a lot more left wing then I am now.


 
Interesting that you don't disagree with the notion that you're basically Eric Pickles before he ate all the pies.


----------



## binka (Mar 23, 2011)

last one i promise:


moon23 said:


> If butchersapron thinks that socially minded Lib Dems are 'cunt's and the 'enemy' what hope does he/she have of changing anyones minds. It's not all so black and white.


lol


----------



## Proper Tidy (Mar 23, 2011)

If I ever meet Moon, I don't know whether I will laugh at him and then punch him, or punch him and then laugh at him.

After further consideration, I will laugh at him and then punch him and then laugh at him. And then punch him again.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 23, 2011)

First they laugh at you,
Then they fight you,
then they laugh at you again.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 23, 2011)

Maybe swallowing his left wing politics and suddenly embracing neo-liberal economics was the best way to secure himself the nomination as local council candidate for the lib dems in the coming local elections? 

Surely not. I cant imagine they are overwhelemed with candiates willing go out  knocking  on doors and getting gobbed on. 

Hes standing somewhere in leeds I guess. Must look out for him.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 23, 2011)

ComRes have a london poll out:



> Westminster voting intention in London is meanwhile CON 31% (down 4 from the general election), LAB 48% (up 11), LDEM 9% (down 13). These are broadly in line with the sort of changes we are seeing in the national polls.



(Livingstone slightly ahead in the Mayor poll - 46/44).


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Productivity and enterprise flourish in free markets, .


not necessarily,once the big players have carved it allup between them.


> and that means a wealthier economy that can support the taxation required to provide a safety net


Not if you let them off taxes,either


----------



## _angel_ (Mar 23, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Maybe swallowing his left wing politics and suddenly embracing neo-liberal economics was the best way to secure himself the nomination as local council candidate for the lib dems in the coming local elections?
> 
> Surely not. I cant imagine they are overwhelemed with candiates willing go out  knocking  on doors and getting gobbed on.
> 
> *Hes standing somewhere in leeds I guess. Must look out for him*.


 
Oh God what did we do to deserve that!


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Because you can be poor and free or rich and imprison. That's not to say that poverty is something desirable of course, but neither is a planned economy the best way to eliminate it. The best way to eliminate poverty is with a largely free market that contains a social welfare net.



Avoiding the point as usual.  How is not having anything to eat "freedom"?  How is not having any choice in where you live "freedom"?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Whatever they like


 
like starve?


----------



## Random (Mar 23, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Avoiding the point as usual.  How is not having anything to eat "freedom"?  How is not having any choice in where you live "freedom"?


 
Heroic liberal ideologues like moon lik to think of themselves as modern day stoics. Sure, they could be free and poor! They want to be left alone, to carve out a free life based on reason! But, just right now they'll take pay from an inbred aristocrat, or the state, just because it happens to suit their rugged stoic ideas. People can fool themselves into being well paid very easily. See also articul8 and the _realignment of the left._


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 23, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Funny you should ask that, I clicked on the Monbiot thread to an old discussion about the SWP. I found Moon having this exchange:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He decided he wanted a career in politics, and threw away any integrity he once had.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 23, 2011)

_angel_ said:


> Oh God what did we do to deserve that!


relax,he'll get whupped


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 23, 2011)

We need to find out where moon is standing - the pointing and laughing potential come may 8th is too good to miss.

I hope hes standing in my ward and comes a knocking .....


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 23, 2011)

It shouldn't be too hard. 33 Wards up for election - By the time you eliminate all the sitting candidates, women, people who clearly have two brain cells to rub together etc we should be able to identify 'Our Moon'.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 23, 2011)

King Biscuit Time said:


> It shouldn't be too hard. 33 Wards up for election - By the time you eliminate all the sitting candidates, women, people who clearly have two brain cells to rub together etc we should be able to identify 'Our Moon'.



got him!


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 23, 2011)

Apologies if this has been posted previously - poll suggests the Lib Dems are now the third party in the _west country_.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 23, 2011)

People in the SW who are not disgusted by the Lib Dems current antics would have voted Tory last time anyway. That's why even in one of their heartlands, the Lib Dem vote is collapsing so badly. They rely on the anti-tory vote here, and they won't get it next time. That's why the Tories are rubbing their hands with glee at  the thought of splitting the vote again and getting places like North Devon back.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Mar 23, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Productivity and enterprise flourish in free markets..



Or so the rhetoric of interested parties tell us.

However, if we analyse what is, and what has been historically meant by "free markets", then the only conclusion we can arrive at given the data is that in *some* economies, in *some* periods, "free markets" have allowed enterprise and productivity to "flourish" in *some* sectors, but that we do not know the costs to labour and the working classes of that flourishing, because we cannot be in any way assured that any "flourishing" of capital result in better wages and conditions for labour. In fact history strongly militates against such a conclusion 



> and that means a wealthier economy that can support the taxation required to provide a safety net.


 
It means noting of the sort. Rather, contemporaneous examples, in the US, in Australia, in may European states, indicate that increased wealth, and the accompanying increased "wealth divide" tends to mean a government less willing to sustain a safety net, and a taxation base, the upper deciles of which resent supporting a safety net at all.


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 28, 2011)

Latest from you gov

CON 36%, LAB 44%, LDEM 9%. gov app -24

the polls had closed in a bit from the budget back to usual now .there seems to be no libya bounce .Does any one keep up with french news to see how that git sakorksy is doing,i think he was expecting to make some headway other libya


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

Also a YG poll today covering just voting intention for the locals and carried out only in areas with actual elections - figures are:

CON 34%(-4), LAB 38%(+16), LDEM 13%(-11), Others 15%

(change is from 2007, last time this tranche of seats was contested)

Prof Colin Rallings projection is:



> this would lead to the Conservatives losing 1000 council seats (about a fifth of those they are defending), and the Liberal Democrats will lose 700 (well over a third of the 1850 seats they are defending). The Liberal Democrats would lose control of 11 councils out of the 25 they currently control.



I think he's being too optimistic regarding the lib-dems, there's going to be a lot of people who are still lib-dems who are going to abstain or vote UKIP/Green IMO - first chance for them to show their mild displeasure.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Mar 29, 2011)

He also underestimates places (like Newcastle) where Tories have always voted Libdem as an anti Labour vote and are actually more likely to do so this time with Labour clearly resurgent and the line between Tories and Libdems nonexistent.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Also a YG poll today covering just voting intention for the locals and carried out only in areas with actual elections - figures are:
> 
> CON 34%(-4), LAB 38%(+16), LDEM 13%(-11), Others 15%
> 
> ...


 
I'd best get canvassing


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

Yeah, that's going to save you.  Adding up all the votes you've lost.


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'd best get canvassing


 
moon23, on the canvass:


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'd best get canvassing


 
Thinking would pay more dividends.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Voley (Mar 29, 2011)

"Libdem 13% Others 15%" is particularly damning.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'd best get canvassing


 
Making concerns clear to your parties leadership might be more beneficial. This isn't a 'the electorate aren't getting the message' - they've got it clear.


But, oh wait, you support what they're doing.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 29, 2011)

Just totally switch your ideology and join a different party moon.  You're good at that.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Yeah, that's going to save you.  Adding up all the votes you've lost.


 
I'm more bothered about chatting to people really than some mass voter ID session.


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2011)

'Listening to people's concerns on the doorstep'


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

stephj said:


> Making concerns clear to your parties leadership might be more beneficial. This isn't a 'the electorate aren't getting the message' - they've got it clear.
> 
> 
> But, oh wait, you support what they're doing.


 
I support some of what they are doing, not everything. Everyone within the party is pretty unhappy with Clegg at the moment, for instance no one wanted to have their picture taken with him at conference.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 29, 2011)

Have you considered becoming a Jehovahs witness?  You might have more success with their message.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I support some of what they are doing, not everything. Everyone within the party is pretty unhappy with Clegg at the moment, for instance no one wanted to have their picture taken with him at conference.


 
So, you think canvassing the public is the right course of action - to tell them that Lib Dems are a good idea. Even though you're all unhappy with Clegg. Brilliant.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Santino said:


> 'Listening to people's concerns on the doorstep'


 
These are local elections, for all the stuff that goes on in Westminster most rank & file Lib Dems have very little control or influence. I think where local Councillors have worked hard and done a good job for their community they should keep their seats. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing if some others who haven't been so good lose their seats. 

I know everyone on hear hates the Lib Dems, and blames them for all the worlds ills but I think it would be a shame of decent local councillors lose their seats because of the national situation.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

stephj said:


> So, you think canvassing the public is the right course of action - to tell them that Lib Dems are a good idea. Even though you're all unhappy with Clegg. Brilliant.


 
Well trying to explain to them that the local party is doing would be a start.  Many people don't even understand how the local situation compares with National. I'm unhappy with some of what Clegg does, not the entire Coalition that I still think is a good thing.


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> These are local elections, for all the stuff that goes on in Westminster most rank & file Lib Dems have very little control or influence. I think where local Councillors have worked hard and done a good job for their community they should keep their seats. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing if some others who haven't been so good lose their seats.
> 
> I know everyone on hear hates the Lib Dems, and blames them for all the worlds ills but I think it would be a shame of decent local councillors lose their seats because of the national situation.


 
How dare you even mention shame.


----------



## stethoscope (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I know everyone on hear hates the Lib Dems, and blames them for all the worlds ills but I think it would be a shame of decent local councillors lose their seats because of the national situation.


 
Maybe, but ultimately, its your councillors that are made the collateral damage to your central leadership/parties direction. It happened to Labour and you probably laughed, now its happening to your guys.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> These are local elections, for all the stuff that goes on in Westminster most rank & file Lib Dems have very little control or influence. I think where local Councillors have worked hard and done a good job for their community they should keep their seats. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing if some others who haven't been so good lose their seats.
> 
> I know everyone on hear hates the Lib Dems, and blames them for all the worlds ills but I think it would be a shame of decent local councillors lose their seats because of the national situation.


 
Yes, political responsibility is just so _passe_.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> These are local elections, for all the stuff that goes on in Westminster most rank & file Lib Dems have very little control or influence. I think where local Councillors have worked hard and done a good job for their community they should keep their seats. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing if some others who haven't been so good lose their seats.
> 
> I know everyone on hear hates the Lib Dems, and blames them for all the worlds ills but I think it would be a shame of decent local councillors lose their seats because of the national situation.


 
The coalition is responsible for cuts to local authority budgets; why should people vote for councillors whose party is attacking them and their communities?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Kaka Tim (Mar 29, 2011)

Where abouts in leeds  are you canvassing moon? 
I'll look out for you.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> The coalition is responsible for cuts to local authority budgets; why should people vote for councillors whose party is attacking them and their communities?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
If the Coalition wasn't in power Labour would be making 80% of these cuts.  It's worth remembering where you make cuts within the local authority has a big difference. If you work hard then it is sometimes possible to find savings that protect front line services. I know my local party and know they have been working flat out to try and create a budget that protects as many people as possible. I look at some of the Labour councils in neighbouring areas and they have been so quick to blame it all on the coalition they haven't cut with nearly as much care.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Where abouts in leeds  are you canvassing moon?
> I'll look out for you.


 
What's your address, maybe I could come and have a nice cup of tea.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

If I go out on the door step and I have person after person saying what the party is doing is wrong then I will take that on board.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> If the Coalition wasn't in power Labour would be making 80% of these cuts.  It's worth remembering where you make cuts within the local authority has a big difference. If you work hard then it is sometimes possible to find savings that protect front line services. I know my local party and know they have been working flat out to try and create a budget that protects as many people as possible. I look at some of the Labour councils in neighbouring areas and they have been so quick to blame it all on the coalition they haven't cut with nearly as much care.



Where have I called for a Labour vote?

Louis MacNeice


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 29, 2011)

With any luck it'll be a Floorboard.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> If I go out on the door step and I have person after person saying what the party is doing is wrong then I will take that on board.


 
In the same way that the coalition took on board the 'march for the alternative'.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2011)

cutting with care


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Where have I called for a Labour vote?
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
You haven't but Labour, Conservative or Lib Dem are the realistic options for many wards.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Santino said:


> cutting with care


 
There are some things LAs do that are wasteful.


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> There are some things LAs do that are wasteful.


 
Yeah, like looking after disabled people, useless mouths that they are.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Well trying to explain to them that the local party is doing would be a start.  Many people don't even understand how the local situation compares with National. I'm unhappy with some of what Clegg does, not the entire Coalition that I still think is a good thing.


 
Ah yes, the classic Lib Dem all things to all men approach. "The party nationally is doing things you hate, but round here we aren't like that at all". Which would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that there's a history of decades of the LDs being Tories with a conscience in rural areas and Labour with no PC in urban areas. What it boils down to for most of us with any sort of memory is that Lib Dems will say absolutely anything to try to get your vote and it won't bear any resemblance to what they actually do if they get any power.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Louis MacNeice said:


> In the same way that the coalition took on board the 'march for the alternative'.
> 
> Louis MacNeice


 
Rank & File Lib Dem members pay attention to public feeling like this.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Ah yes, the classic Lib Dem all things to all men approach. "The party nationally is doing things you hate, but round here we aren't like that at all". Which would be fine if it wasn't for the fact that there's a history of decades of the LDs being Tories with a conscience in rural areas and Labour with no PC in urban areas. What it boils down to for most of us with any sort of memory is that Lib Dems will say absolutely anything to try to get your vote and it won't bear any resemblance to what they actually do if they get any power.



People can judge the local party on it's track record and see what we are like.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

What are you going to do? You disagree with public opinion and support the cunts that your party has pushed for. So are you going to lie to the public and 'pay attention' i.e lie?


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah, like looking after disabled people, useless mouths that they are.


 
And providing womens refuges.  I mean, get a grip ladies, the bruising will go down.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> Yeah, like looking after disabled people, useless mouths that they are.


 
I can't comment on what the party is like down in Brum where it's in a coalition with the Conservatives, but up here it's not screwing over disabled people.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> People can judge the local party on it's track record and see what we are like.


 
wankers no doubt.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> People can judge the local party on it's track record and see what we are like.


 
They don't like you do they? Nationally or locally. And they're not thick enough to fall for your desperate argument that the two are separate.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> What are you going to do? You disagree with public opinion and support the cunts that your party has pushed for. So are you going to lie to the public and 'pay attention' i.e lie?


 
I agree with the 57% of people who think cuts are required. I don't agree with every single cut though Butchersapron.


----------



## fractionMan (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I can't comment on what the party is like down in Brum where it's in a coalition with the Conservatives, but up here it's not screwing over disabled people.


 
Fuck you.  I have first hand experience of your cuts.  It affects my family.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I can't comment on what the party is like down in Brum where it's in a coalition with the Conservatives, but up here it's not screwing over disabled people.


 
Yes it is. It's doing it nationally - of course, with less effect in your tory mates areas.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They don't like you do they? Nationally or locally. And they're not thick enough to fall for your desperate argument that the two are separate.


 
We did a phone canvass and we have lost about 15% of our vote since May in this area. Mainly though it's going to the Greens so will have little impact on the election outcome.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I agree with the 57% of people who think cuts are required. I don't agree with every single cut though Butchersapron.



Where's your figure from?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Fuck you.  I have first hand experience of your cuts.  It affects my family.


 
So have I, my Girlfriend lost her job and i'm down to three days a week work.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> We did a phone canvass and we have lost about 15% of our vote since May in this area. Mainly though it's going to the Greens so will have little impact on the election outcome.


 15%? You really really haven't.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Where's your figure from?



Graun/ICM Poll

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/25/voters-cuts-coalition-poll


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So have I, my Girlfriend lost her job and i'm down to three days a week work.


 
Bit more effort you can get your mum sacked and you down to one day a week.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Bit more effort you can get your mum sacked and you down to one day a week.


 
Or I could do nothing and watch the interest rates on her Mortgage soar as we went the way of Portugal.


----------



## creak (Mar 29, 2011)

Bollocks is anyone going out with you


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Graun/ICM Poll
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/mar/25/voters-cuts-coalition-poll



Ah yes, you've jumped on the single poll in 6 months+ that shows anything like what you say and that's totally out of line with everyone else.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Or I could do nothing and watch the interest rates on her Mortgage soar as we went the way of Portugal.


 
You could do nothing? What _are_ you doing?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

creak said:


> Bollocks is anyone going out with you


 
Oh yea, because Lib Dems are so hated that they are now all single.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Ah yes, you've jumped on the single poll in 6 months+ that shows anything like what you say and that's totally out of line with everyone else.


 
It's the most recent poll on the cuts, and commissioned by left learning anti-cuts paper.   A week is a long time in politics so i'm not going to look at something 6mths old am I


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Anyway i'd best go get on with some work, as if my boss catches me on Urban then I won't have a job!


----------



## Random (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Anyway i'd best go get on with some work, as if my boss catches me on Urban then I won't have a job!


 
You should join a union, if you've not already done so.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> It's the most recent poll on the cuts, and commissioned by left learning anti-cuts paper.   A week is a long time in politics so i'm not going to look at something 6mths old am I


 
No it's not and it's commissioned by a pro-cuts pro-coalition paper. The latest finds 29% support for the cuts. Off you go.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 29, 2011)

What will keep the rank and file LDs motivated once the AV vote is in the rear view window? I honestly expected more dissent by now,  the apologism for the cuts agenda from the likes of Moon, who really should know better, is really quite weird.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

I'd also like to see the full tables for Glovers reading of the poll - he's been caught talking shit about poll results before.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What will keep the rank and file LDs motivated once the AV vote is in the rear view window? I honestly expected more dissent by now,  the apologism for the cuts agenda from the likes of Moon, who really should know better, is really quite weird.


 
Same as has always motivated them  - ego, careerism and cuntery. Why would there be dissent though? if you're against what they're doing you leave, if you support it you stay. Despite the hyperbole about the lib-dems being uniquely democratic the extremists tied up the party years ago - that's exactly why Clegg was elected leader. They own that party, and their grip has tightened since may 2010. You were  a bit lax and naive about them weren't you?


----------



## Random (Mar 29, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> What will keep the rank and file LDs motivated once the AV vote is in the rear view window? I honestly expected more dissent by now,  the apologism for the cuts agenda from the likes of Moon, who really should know better, is really quite weird.


 
The ones who're not happy are probably just fading away, rather than dissenting. We'll see how many canvassers they can muster for elections, that'll be key.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No it's not and it's commissioned by a pro-cuts pro-coalition paper. The latest finds 29% support for the cuts. Off you go.


 
That's a different question, it still shows 58% support the level of cuts, just that half of those think they are being done too quickly. What should worry you is that only 15% of people think the cuts are too large and should be achieved through tax rises instead. 

This poll shows that only 15% of people support the position most of you on Urban advocate e.g. less cuts and more taxes.


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

What a different question?

And so it shows, as i accurately said, only 29% support the current cuts program.


----------



## ericjarvis (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> People can judge the local party on it's track record and see what we are like.


 
As I said. A bunch of unscrupulous liars who will say anything to get a vote and then will do something completely different if they ever get any power.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> We did a phone canvass and we have lost about 15% of our vote since May in this area. Mainly though it's going to the Greens so will have little impact on the election outcome.


 
15% of your vote? Are you sure it's not 15% of the total vote. I could just about see that.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Or I could do nothing and watch the interest rates on her Mortgage soar as we went the way of Portugal.


stop this fuckwitted and ignorant like-for-like comparison with other economies! The Portuguese economy has ZERO in common with ours!


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 29, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Same as has always motivated them  - ego, careerism and cuntery. Why would there be dissent though? if you're against what they're doing you leave, if you support it you stay. Despite the hyperbole about the lib-dems being uniquely democratic the extremists tied up the party years ago - that's exactly why Clegg was elected leader. They own that party, and their grip has tightened since may 2010. You were  a bit lax and naive about them weren't you?


actually, an awful lot of libdems (of a socially egalitarian bent)are more in the party out of longterm loyalty,right now


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> stop this fuckwitted and ignorant like-for-like comparison with other economies! The Portuguese economy has ZERO in common with ours!


 
he isn't going to stop, no matter how many times you tell him with CAPITAL letters and exclamations!

i think there's three sensible responses to moon's stupidity:

1) politely and logically shoot down his arguments
2) call him a cunt
3) 1) then 2)


----------



## butchersapron (Mar 29, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> actually, an awful lot of libdems (of a socially egalitarian bent)are more in the party out of longterm loyalty,right now


 
They might be but they're going soon.


----------



## kyser_soze (Mar 29, 2011)

killer b said:


> he isn't going to stop, no matter how many times you tell him with CAPITAL letters and exclamations!
> 
> i think there's three sensible responses to moon's stupidity:
> 
> ...


 
Taking step one has led to a massive time deficit in everyone's lives. I therefore propose, in the spirit of the cuts moon loves so much, to only go with option 2


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2011)

it's the one i favour.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> That's a different question, it still shows 58% support the level of cuts, just that half of those think they are being done too quickly. What should worry you is that only 15% of people think the cuts are too large and should be achieved through tax rises instead.
> 
> This poll shows that only 15% of people support the position most of you on Urban advocate e.g. less cuts and more taxes.


 
Cunt


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Rank & File Lib Dem members pay attention to public feeling like this.


 
And do what about it?


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> So have I, my Girlfriend lost her job and i'm down to three days a week work.


 
Every cloud eh? I'm sure you're both delighted to be doing your bit for the good of society. I hope you both applaud the financial decisions that have led to this necessary situation?!


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Cunt


 
much easier isn't it?


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> Every cloud eh? I'm sure you're both delighted to be doing your bit for the good of society. I hope you both applaud the financial decisions that have led to this necessary situation?!


 
I blame a mixture of the bankers and the high public spending for the current cuts.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I blame a mixture of the bankers and the high public spending for the current cuts.


 
But I assume you're happy that you and your girlfriend are shouldering the burden, and so bravely i'm sure, that your mates have decided you should shoulder?!


----------



## weepiper (Mar 29, 2011)

Fedayn said:


> But I assume you're happy that you and your girlfriend are shouldering the burden, and so bravely i'm sure, that your mates have decided you should shoulder?!


 
He forgives them, for they know not what they do, eh.


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2011)

29th Mar CON 36%, LAB 42%, LD 10%; APP -25 (yougov/sun)

stagnating on 10%. what can we do to drive it down further? should we just leave it to nick?


----------



## Blagsta (Mar 29, 2011)

Random said:


> You should join a union, if you've not already done so.


 
He used to be a union rep


----------



## BigTom (Mar 29, 2011)

I think Nick is doing a fine job on his own.  I'm not sure what else we can do - the lib dem conference will be in brum on september 17th, we should make that a big one.  Hopefully terrible results in the local elections in may will act to push the polls down as well


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2011)

Wait until services start disappearing soon. How many people think 'the cuts' are already over?


----------



## killer b (Mar 29, 2011)

i suppose the grim flipside to low polls for the lib dems is, the lower they are the shitter life is... every silver lining has it's cloud eh?


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I blame a mixture of the bankers and the high public spending for the current cuts.


 
i think you're more to blame than most.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 29, 2011)

Blagsta said:


> He used to be a union rep


 
I'm not anti-Union, the problem is that since the death of manufacturing the British Union movement has become an extension of the government workers party.


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm not anti-Union, the problem is that since the death of manufacturing the British Union movement has become an extension of the government workers party.


 
You been listening to those yank anti-unionists, moon? Got a beef about government workers selfishly trying to protect their gold-plated pensions?


----------



## Belushi (Mar 30, 2011)

moon23 said:


> I'm not anti-Union, the problem is that since the death of manufacturing the British Union movement has become an extension of the government workers party.


 
You mean all those industrial workers in private enterprises like British Steel, British Leyland, the NCB..


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Same as has always motivated them  - ego, careerism and cuntery. Why would there be dissent though? if you're against what they're doing you leave, if you support it you stay. Despite the hyperbole about the lib-dems being uniquely democratic the extremists tied up the party years ago - that's exactly why Clegg was elected leader. They own that party, and their grip has tightened since may 2010. You were  a bit lax and naive about them weren't you?


 
Yes Butchers I was lax and naive, even after May. I thought that for them voting reform was a generational objective so quite a lot of shit would be worth it. In other words 'sit tight and keep your traps shut till after the referendum'. But if that is what is going on they are being impressively tight lipped about it. In fact, I've detected far more of the opposite, sneering at Labour with lots of lies that they were too 'left wing'. As fucking if. You could well be right about an effective takeover. I hope the same doesn't happen to my little tribe, but I've started to come around the block enough times to know anything is sadly possible. I disagree that it is just a case of dissent and leave or support and stay though. How would you account for the likes of LRC in that black/white analysis? I guess I am looking to an LD equivalent of LRC. We had one dissident LD at GP conference, can't remember his name for the life of me but he stands out for how unusual he is in my recent experience. Like Random, I suspect a lot have just drifted off, they certainly struggled for activists in the Oldham bye election. I guess I should have seen it comming in theoretical terms alone - a liberal can be too liberal about conservatism even if they ain't given to (neo) liberal economics per se. BUT they could still arguably turn it all around - get the AV vote through, pull the plug and bring down the government. That was a scenario I kind of hoped for that doesnt seem too likely right now. There needs to be a civil war in the party and I don't get any whiff of it.


----------



## Sgt Howie (Mar 30, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> You could well be right about an effective takeover. I hope the same doesn't happen to my little tribe, but I've started to come around the block enough times to know anything is sadly possible.


 
The experience of Green parties in Ireland, Germany, Czech Republic and on Leeds council suggests you're right to be concerned.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Mar 30, 2011)

Sgt Howie said:


> The experience of Green parties in Ireland, Germany, Czech Republic and on Leeds council suggests you're right to be concerned.



Indeed so. GP of england and wales is traditionally one of the more left in Europe, but not without it's mainstream tendencies and those who would drift with them. More happily for our Scottish brothers and sisters, here is how low the LD vote could go up there

http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Lib-Dems-to-fall-behind.6742850.jp


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> Indeed so. GP of england and wales is traditionally one of the more left in Europe, but not without it's mainstream tendencies and those who would drift with them. More happily for our Scottish brothers and sisters, here is how low the LD vote could go up there
> 
> http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh/Lib-Dems-to-fall-behind.6742850.jp


 
Robin Harper the Green MSP in Lothians is no radical. He's firmly on the moderate wing of the party. The better of the Green MSP's Mark Ballard and Mark Ruskell lost their seats in 2007.


----------



## co-op (Mar 30, 2011)

Sgt Howie said:


> The experience of Green parties in Ireland, Germany, Czech Republic and on Leeds council suggests you're right to be concerned.


 
There's of course a bigger debate here about whether elected politicians can ever remain properly radical, but I'd quibble with putting the German Greens in the same list as the Czech and Irish GPs. If the Greens hadn't been in coalition with the SPD, (98-05) and (the arch-realo) Fischer not been Foreign Minister, my guess is that Germany would have joined the Iraq invasion. It's not much but it helped split "the west" and led to much yankee fulminating about Old Europe and the Coalition of the Willing etc. They also forced through a long overdue redefinition of German citizenship laws to allow - effectively for the first time - genuine citizenship rights to "immigrants". 

It ain't much but they were clearly the most radical of the realistic candidates for govt in Germany 10 years ago and arguably still, although the Linke may be taking that mantle.


Also I believe the Leeds Greens have seen the light and gone into alliance with Labour now, certainly last I heard they had.


----------



## moon23 (Mar 30, 2011)

co-op said:


> There's of course a bigger debate here about whether elected politicians can ever remain properly radical, but I'd quibble with putting the German Greens in the same list as the Czech and Irish GPs. If the Greens hadn't been in coalition with the SPD, (98-05) and (the arch-realo) Fischer not been Foreign Minister, my guess is that Germany would have joined the Iraq invasion. It's not much but it helped split "the west" and led to much yankee fulminating about Old Europe and the Coalition of the Willing etc. They also forced through a long overdue redefinition of German citizenship laws to allow - effectively for the first time - genuine citizenship rights to "immigrants".
> 
> It ain't much but they were clearly the most radical of the realistic candidates for govt in Germany 10 years ago and arguably still, although the Linke may be taking that mantle.
> 
> ...


 
Yes, but having gone in with Labour on Leeds council they agreed to support a budget that will result in countless job losses. Elsewhere Greens are campaining against councils that bring in cuts.


----------



## killer b (Mar 30, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, but having gone in with Labour on Leeds council they agreed to support a budget that will result in countless job losses. Elsewhere Greens are campaining against councils that bring in cuts.


 
fuck you.


----------



## shagnasty (Mar 30, 2011)

I agree with taffboy ,you don't know what your getting till they start to govern


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 30, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, but having gone in with Labour on Leeds council they agreed to support a budget that will result in countless job losses. Elsewhere Greens are campaining against councils that bring in cuts.


 
fuck you pig.


----------



## Fedayn (Mar 30, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, but having gone in with Labour on Leeds council they agreed to support a budget that will result in countless job losses. Elsewhere Greens are campaining against councils that bring in cuts.


 
If I was you i'd fuck off from lecturing people about job losses. Your mates are about to make this Green idiocy look like chickenfeed.....


----------



## redsquirrel (Mar 31, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> I agree with taffboy ,you don't know what your getting till they start to govern


 Yes I mean you can't look at other examples, read/listen to what is being said or use their past behaviour as a guide to how they might act in the future, that would just be stupid.


----------



## Streathamite (Mar 31, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> They might be but they're going soon.


aye,a toss-up between mutiny and mass desertion


----------



## co-op (Mar 31, 2011)

moon23 said:


> Yes, but having gone in with Labour on Leeds council they agreed to support a budget that will result in countless job losses. Elsewhere Greens are campaining against councils that bring in cuts.


 
Indeed they are - and like local labour partys up and down the country - they will be doing it because they have been forced to by massive central govt cuts imposed by you and your chums so that we can all keep the bankers in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

@ everyone else, I am not arguing that the GP are heros of socialism btw. But they are clearly a left wing party in England and to argue otherwise is silly.


----------



## Corax (Mar 31, 2011)

co-op said:


> @ everyone else, I am not arguing that the GP are heros of socialism btw. But they are clearly a left wing party in England and to argue otherwise is silly.


 
I don't have a crystal view on the party overall, but I posed a couple of questions to my local candidate pre-election, and he had zero left wing political awareness.


----------



## co-op (Mar 31, 2011)

Corax said:


> I don't have a crystal view on the party overall, but I posed a couple of questions to my local candidate pre-election, and he had zero left wing political awareness.





Heh. I've had the same experience, I think a few of the party haven't twigged yet, but their manifesto is further left than any of the mainstream parties.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2011)

I read one report that said that the LibDems could lose up to 800 council seats in the May elections in England and Wales. Clegg would settle for 500 and then be able to say 'the only way is up'


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 31, 2011)

co-op said:


> Heh. I've had the same experience, I think a few of the party haven't twigged yet, but their manifesto is further left than any of the mainstream parties.


 
as left as the BNPs?


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2011)

killer b said:


> fuck you.





Refused as fuck said:


> fuck you pig.


This is unacceptable personal abuse. Please argue the_ issues. _


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2011)

if you insist.

moon23, you complaining about the detail of other party's implementation of the cuts _your party _pushed through is the act of a worthless hypocrite, or a madman. or a cunt.


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2011)

or all three.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Mar 31, 2011)

I find the Tory (in which I include the "Lib" "Dems") plans to sell the NHS to the lowest bidder unacceptable personal abuse, yet you allow one of the sociopaths a platform to excrete all over the internet.


----------



## Corax (Mar 31, 2011)

editor said:


> This is unacceptable personal abuse. Please argue the_ issues. _


 
Can the issue be whether he should go fuck himself?


----------



## co-op (Mar 31, 2011)

The39thStep said:


> as left as the BNPs?


 
I'll have to admit I haven't read it so perhaps you can tell me.


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2011)

Corax said:


> Can the issue be whether he should go fuck himself?


 
_the personal is political_


----------



## killer b (Mar 31, 2011)

YouGov/Sun results 31st Mar CON 35%, LAB 42%, LD 10%; APP -24


----------



## jannerboyuk (Mar 31, 2011)

editor said:


> This is unacceptable personal abuse. Please argue the_ issues. _


 
I agree with Bevan "Tory vermin"


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2011)

co-op said:


> Heh. I've had the same experience, I think a few of the party haven't twigged yet, but their manifesto is further left than any of the mainstream parties.


 
It is, yes. It proposes a universal citizen's wage. 

But the Green Lifestylists dominate the Green Left on the ground, and they are, for the most part, fucking morons.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 1, 2011)

ymu said:


> It is, yes. It proposes a universal citizen's wage.



Cool indeed, if done properly.



> But the Green Lifestylists dominate the Green Left on the ground, and they are, for the most part, fucking morons.


 
If lifestyle Greens are anything like lifestyle anarchists....

Nice to see you back, by the way!


----------



## ymu (Apr 1, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Cool indeed, if done properly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
From what I recall, it was very sensibly argued, if not quite what I would go for.

And thanks! I buggered up my password and fell in the canal with my phone in my pocket on the same day -  took a while to work out how in hell to get back when I couldn't get past the password recovery. Thanks to the frogster and Crispy for rescuing me!


----------



## Balbi (Apr 6, 2011)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election

9% 3/4 April 

4% off the margin of error isn't it?

Although the breakdown shows they'd still vote in Cameron's Tories over Milliband's Labour. And that cuts are necessary, but too deep, too quick - and it's Labours fault.


----------



## audiotech (Apr 12, 2011)

Cracks appearing.

Former Lib Dem leader of Liverpool City Council has urged Nick Clegg to pull out of coalition before it "disappears into the annals of history".

He expects 'the boil to come to a head and burst on election night'.

Most, on here at least, would like to see it lanced before then.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13043023


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 12, 2011)

audiotech said:


> Cracks appearing.
> 
> Former Lib Dem leader of Liverpool City Council has urged Nick Clegg to pull out of coalition before it "disappears into the annals of history".
> 
> ...


 
Loving the analogies - the coalition as a boil lol. The question is, which will happen first? Will Clegg disappear into the annals of history, or will he disappear up his _own_ annal cavity? (ok, I'll get me coat).


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 12, 2011)

in other new the Tories haven't had a poll lead since mid-december...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2011)

Piece by Kellner in new issue of Prospect



> YouGov’s most recent nationwide survey, involving nearly 50,000 people, shows that as many as 69 per cent of Lib Dem voters have deserted the party since last May


----------



## ymu (Apr 26, 2011)




----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2011)

Polling for Leicester South constituency next week:

CON 20%(-1)
LAB 61%(+15)
LDEM 14%(-13)
UKIP 5%(+3)

This in a seat they once held (albeit via a by-election) and had hopes before last May of taking back again.

Nationally lib-dems still hovering around 9-10%.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 1, 2011)

It's not good enough guys. I had my heart set on the Lib Dems dipping regularly below 10% before the summer.


----------



## killer b (May 1, 2011)

i fear we may have to start manually reducing the numbers, one lib-dem voter at a time.


----------



## weepiper (May 2, 2011)

a couple of polls in the Herald today putting the Lib-Dems on between 3-7% in the Scottish elections


----------



## Voley (May 2, 2011)

Splendid.


----------



## ericjarvis (May 2, 2011)

weepiper said:


> a couple of polls in the Herald today putting the Lib-Dems on between 3-7% in the Scottish elections


 
That's better. See! C'mon England, don't let the Scots outdo us. Let's see the Lib Dems below 5% across the entire country.


----------



## embree (May 3, 2011)

weepiper said:


> a couple of polls in the Herald today putting the Lib-Dems on between 3-7% in the Scottish elections


 
Good sensible people the Scots


----------



## claphamboy (May 3, 2011)

embree said:


> Good sensible people the Scots


 
Do you include sass in that?


----------



## frogwoman (May 3, 2011)

of course. he's not a lib dem is he/


----------



## embree (May 3, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Do you include sass in that?


 
I was generalising of course


----------



## the button (May 6, 2011)

*Celebratory bump*


----------



## Voley (May 6, 2011)

the button said:


> *Celebratory bump*


 
*clinks glasses*


----------



## DrRingDing (May 6, 2011)

Getting beaten by the Tories in Scotland? 

I lol'd.


----------



## BigTom (May 9, 2011)

Latest YouGov/Sun results 9th May CON 38%, LAB 42%, LD 8%; 
APPROVAL -21 
FULL RESULTS  (PDF)

8%


----------



## Voley (May 9, 2011)

BigTom said:


> 8%


 
A progressive step for a truly progressive party.


----------



## killer b (May 9, 2011)

Was just coming here to post that.


----------



## weepiper (May 9, 2011)

weepiper said:


> a couple of polls in the Herald today putting the Lib-Dems on between 3-7% in the Scottish elections


 
these were quite accurate!


----------



## embree (May 9, 2011)

BigTom said:


> Latest YouGov/Sun results 9th May CON 38%, LAB 42%, LD 8%;
> APPROVAL -21
> FULL RESULTS  (PDF)
> 
> 8%


 
Bloody marvelous. Field work done 8th/9th May so perhaps first signs of the Lib Dem apocalypse pulling away a few more voters as they realise how utterly screwed the party is


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2011)

yougov have them at 9% today.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (May 10, 2011)

Under 10%!  Blimey, even the National Front polled more than that in surveys in the 70s!  Hilarious.


----------



## killer b (May 10, 2011)

it's a shame it took the locals for them to smash down through the 10% barrier, but now they're there we can only hope they remain in their natural habitat.


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2011)

evening all. latest yougov: CON 36%, LAB 41%, LDEM 9%

that's their third sub-10% poll in a row.

the only way is down.


----------



## audiotech (May 16, 2011)

White House watches gruesome scenes.

http://www.private-eye.co.uk/covers.php?showme=1288&


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2011)

fuck hislop.


----------



## Proper Tidy (May 16, 2011)

killer b said:


> fuck hislop.


 
+1


----------



## southside (May 16, 2011)

What was the political map before the local elections? anyone got a graphic to compare the before and after?


----------



## Lo Siento. (May 16, 2011)

where are that 9% do you suppose? Is it concentrated in the South-West? or just lightly spread about rural englnad


----------



## killer b (May 16, 2011)

hiding, as far as i can tell.


----------



## embree (May 16, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> where are that 9% do you suppose? Is it concentrated in the South-West? or just lightly spread about rural englnad


 
Well going by our locals here, there's still a few liberal "too 'nice' to be Tories, too posh to be Labour' enclaves in urban areas


----------



## redsquirrel (May 17, 2011)

embree said:


> Well going by our locals here, there's still a few liberal "too 'nice' to be Tories, too posh to be Labour' enclaves in urban areas


This makes quite interesting reading, 91% of the members and ex-members sampled still supported joining the coalition, the morons. So I'm guessing that there's a few scum hiding all around the country.


----------



## fractionMan (May 17, 2011)

embree said:


> Well going by our locals here, there's still a few liberal "too 'nice' to be Tories, too posh to be Labour' enclaves in urban areas


 
Bath is full of them.  Still.


----------



## embree (May 17, 2011)

Last four YouGov polls have the Lib Dems on 8/9%


----------



## barney_pig (May 18, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> Bath is full of them.  Still.


 chuck an electric bar heater in


----------



## claphamboy (May 18, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> chuck an electric bar heater in


----------



## free spirit (May 19, 2011)

redsquirrel said:


> This makes quite interesting reading, 91% of the members and ex-members sampled still supported joining the coalition, the morons. So I'm guessing that there's a few scum hiding all around the country.


tbf, I doubt this gives a particularly accurate impression as the question's not really worded well.

I'd think many would answer yes who accepted the original rationale for entering the coalition, but don't support it now in light of the way the lib dems (and tories) have acted while in coalition / the resulting coalition policies, and who wouldn't support it in the same circumstances again knowing what they know now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 19, 2011)

free spirit said:


> tbf, I doubt this gives a particularly accurate impression as the question's not really worded well.
> 
> I'd think many would answer yes who accepted the original rationale for entering the coalition, but don't support it now in light of the way the lib dems (and tories) have acted while in coalition / the resulting coalition policies, and who wouldn't support it in the same circumstances again knowing what they know now.



No, there's no way that this can be plausibly argued - not when it's up against the fact that only 7% want to end the coalition now - or 79% thinking that the coalition has been good for the party. The full tabs (pdf) reveal just how looney the  lib-dems are (the real lib-dems, the ones who voted in Clegg et al, not the anti-troy/labour tactical voters) are:

77% think Huhne is doing a great job - 49% of the public think he has to go immediately. 77% think the public laughing stock Vince Cable is doing well.

50% of them think Clegg whose lead the party to sub 10% polling, left them humiliated in two by-elections and lost the AV referendum for them is doing a good job, whilst 72% think Miloband whose led the Labour Party to a clear sustained poll lead is doing a bad job.

66% of them think the well known hard right neo-liberal extremist Nick Clegg is on the centre or the left.

87% think the well known hard right neo-liberal extremist Vince Cable is on the centre or the left.

85% of the members the well known hard right neo-liberal extremist lib-dem party believe that they themselves are on the centre or the left - 64% unambiguously think they're on the left.

So there we have it - miles out of touch with ordinary popular sentiment, deluded about how their leaders and their party appears to others, ignorant or supportive  of the damage that their leaders and party are doing, deluded about the nature of the parties hard-right politics and self-deluded as to where their own politics are or what they mean. Not bad for a years work eh?


----------



## fractionMan (May 19, 2011)

64% of lib dems think they're on the left? 

lol ffs


----------



## Streathamite (May 19, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, there's no way that this can be plausibly argued - not when it's up against the fact that only 7% want to end the coalition now - or 79% thinking that the coalition has been good for the party. The full tabs (pdf) reveal just how looney the  lib-dems are (the real lib-dems, the ones who voted in Clegg et al, not the anti-troy/labour tactical voters) are:
> 
> 77% think Huhne is doing a great job - 49% of the public think he has to go immediately. 77% think the public laughing stock Vince Cable is doing well.
> 
> ...


That has shocked me - i thought that at least _parts_ of their grassroots were better than that. I still think it won't last the full 5 years (The Coalition, that is) but I think now a mass panic as they stare oblivion is the face will be the most likely cause of their internal meltdown, and it will need at least 3 trouncings at the council polls to do it.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (May 19, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> 64% of lib dems think they're on the left?
> 
> lol ffs


 
They are actually mental...


----------



## free spirit (May 20, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> No, there's no way that this can be plausibly argued - not when it's up against the fact that only 7% want to end the coalition now - or 79% thinking that the coalition has been good for the party. The full tabs (pdf) reveal just how looney the  lib-dems are (the real lib-dems, the ones who voted in Clegg et al, not the anti-troy/labour tactical voters) are:
> 
> 77% think Huhne is doing a great job - 49% of the public think he has to go immediately. 77% think the public laughing stock Vince Cable is doing well.
> 
> ...


sorry, I obviously wasn't clear, I was talking about the ex lib dem side of that survey.


----------



## killer b (May 21, 2011)

CON 37%, LAB 42%, LDEM 8%

yougov tomorrow


----------



## Santino (Jun 7, 2011)

Another 8% from Yougov tomorrow: Con 36, Lab 44, LD 8.


----------



## Fedayn (Jun 7, 2011)

fractionMan said:


> 64% of lib dems think they're on the left?
> 
> lol ffs


 
Because they define left not by economic issues but 'social' issues such as race, gender, sexuality.... There are also some like Danny Alexander who theyn they're economically Left too. He, however, is a genuine moron, who seems to have totally disappeared recently... Any connection between his being a Scottish MP and the Lib Dums performance in the recent Scottish Elections is of course entirely co-incidental.


----------



## ericjarvis (Jun 8, 2011)

Santino said:


> Another 8% from Yougov tomorrow: Con 36, Lab 44, LD 8.


 
C'mon guys. Lets just edge them down another 3%. We can do it!


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 8, 2011)

It should be pointed out Mr UKpolling report is on a weeks hols, so the updatews next week should make good reading


----------



## shagnasty (Jun 13, 2011)

The monthly Populus poll for the Times has topline figures of CON 39%(+2), LAB 40%(+1), LDEM 9%(-2). This is the lowest level of Lib Dem support that Populus have shown so far, and the first time they’ve shown them dropping into single figures (YouGov have regularly shown single figure Lib Dem scores, but Populus have tended to show them a couple of points higher)..


libdem new low in populus polls


----------



## BigTom (Jun 17, 2011)

http://blogs.birminghampost.net/news/2011/06/in-her-own-words-sandwells-lib.html

Sandwell lib dem mayor and councillor defect to labour


----------



## The39thStep (Jun 17, 2011)

The pension review is going to cost them what ever support they had left in the public sector


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2011)

YouGov -Labour 42%, tories 36%, LDs 9%


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> YouGov -Labour _*425, *_tories 36%, LDs 9%


 
that's a runaway lead for labour. jeezus.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2011)

killer b said:


> that's a runaway lead for labour. jeezus.


obvious typo now corrected


----------



## killer b (Jun 17, 2011)

no wai.


----------



## Quartz (Jun 17, 2011)

If only I could be persuaded that people were going for Labour as best rather than least-worst.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jun 17, 2011)

Quartz said:


> If only I could be persuaded that people were going for Labour as best rather than least-worst.



Isn't that what British general elections are all about? That's the only reason I've _ever_ voted for them.


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 17, 2011)

err, yeah, that's kinda the _point_


----------



## little_legs (Jun 19, 2011)

YouGov stuff the Sunday Times, June 19: 

State of the parties YouGov surveyed a representative sample of 2,451 adults, online, on June 16-17:
Conservative 37% 
Labour 42% 
Lib Dem 10% 
Others 12% 

Was the government right to change its plans for the NHS? 
Yes 61%; Don't know 23%; No 16%; 

Do you think government policy changes are: 
Evidence of weakness or being poorly thought through 37%;
Evidence that government is prepared to listen and drop unpopular ideas 39%; 
Neither/ Don't know 24%;

Which previous prime minister does Cameron's leadership style most resemble? 
Thatcher 19% 
Blair 10% 
Major 9% 
Heath 3% 

Do you believe recent policy U-turns show the coalition has lost its way? 
Yes 43% 
No 27% 
Neither/ Don't know 30%


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 24, 2011)

They are now behind UKIP in the north according to the 22nd YG data.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jun 26, 2011)

Two recent by-election results from Newcastle

*Byker*

Labour               1206

Liberal Democrat  106

Conservative          76

BNP                     144

Independent           78

Newcastle First       55



*Westerhope*

BNP                       81

Independent         883

Labour                1106

Conservative         204

Liberal Democrat   492

Newcastle First      532

In Byker a solidly working class ward they were anihilated, and they held the Westerhope seat until May when the sitting councillor died, they couldn't even get a sympathy vote.


----------



## Bear (Jun 26, 2011)

Quartz said:


> If only I could be persuaded that people were going for Labour as best rather than least-worst.



Labour is not the least worst of the big parties.  The SNP is.  In England the Tories are the least bad.  Read what my Labour MP told me on the Scotland tops world cocaine use thread.  It shows their mentality, authoritarian and really nasty.  And Labour want to use social engineering to mould and shape society into their own vile image.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 26, 2011)

So what the Tories are doing now doesn't constitute social engineering? Thatcher didn't embark on the most damaging project of social engineering ever seen in this country?

Your Labour MP is a fecking moron. Her words are evidence of this, nothing more, nothing less. Tories are the least worst ffs, sort it out.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 27, 2011)

Bear's still in denial.


----------



## Bear (Jun 27, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> So what the Tories are doing now doesn't constitute social engineering? Thatcher didn't embark on the most damaging project of social engineering ever seen in this country?
> 
> Your Labour MP is a fecking moron. Her words are evidence of this, nothing more, nothing less. Tories are the least worst ffs, sort it out.



Thatcher brought out and encoouraged the worst in people.  Before Thatcher, things like greed and selfishness and not giving a damn about anyone but me, me, me and my selfish self were seen as a bad part of human nature; things that people had but things that we should try and control and rise above.  Thatcher said those things were OK and encouraged them, very damaging to society they were.  Labour however are like the pigs on animal farm the movie.

By all means vote Labour, don't blame me when the thought police kick in your door.


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 27, 2011)

Bear said:


> By all means vote Labour, don't blame me when the thought police kick in your door.


 
As opposed to the Tories actually kicking people's doors in.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jun 27, 2011)

Bear said:


> Thatcher brought out and encoouraged the worst in people.  Before Thatcher, things like greed and selfishness and not giving a damn about anyone but me, me, me and my selfish self were seen as a bad part of human nature; things that people had but things that we should try and control and rise above.  Thatcher said those things were OK and encouraged them, very damaging to society they were.  Labour however are like the pigs on animal farm the movie.


 
Are you 12 years old?


----------



## Bear (Jun 27, 2011)

Hey what was the name of that act Labour tried to pass in government to give government minister the ability to amend legislation WITHOUT the approval of parliament?

I'll bet call me Dave and calamity Clegg don't try anything nearly as bad...


----------



## stethoscope (Jun 27, 2011)

Bear said:


> I'll bet call me Dave and calamity Clegg don't try anything nearly as bad...


 
They already are.

Not that I could give a shit about Labour either.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 27, 2011)

Bear said:


> Thatcher brought out and encoouraged the worst in people.  Before Thatcher, things like greed and selfishness and not giving a damn about anyone but me, me, me and my selfish self were seen as a bad part of human nature; things that people had but things that we should try and control and rise above.  Thatcher said those things were OK and encouraged them, very damaging to society they were.  Labour however are like the pigs on animal farm the movie.
> 
> By all means vote Labour, don't blame me when the thought police kick in your door.


 
I voted Labour once, in 1997. I haven't voted for them since, nor will I vote for them again unless there are changes made to that party that I believe are now impossible. You see, unlike you I want to point out the facts rather than justify being a turkey who voted for Christmas at the last election.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jun 27, 2011)

Bear said:


> Hey what was the name of that act Labour tried to pass in government to give government minister the ability to amend legislation WITHOUT the approval of parliament?
> 
> I'll bet call me Dave and calamity Clegg don't try anything nearly as bad...


 
They've already done it you plum. Theresa May *has* amended the Terrorism act (or whatever it's called) without legislative approval. They haven't tried to pass legislation that will allow them to do it, they have *done it*. Are you really this naive?


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 27, 2011)

Bear said:


> Labour is not the least worst of the big parties.  The SNP is.  In England the Tories are the least bad.  Read what my Labour MP told me on the Scotland tops world cocaine use thread.  It shows their mentality, authoritarian and really nasty.  And Labour want to use social engineering to mould and shape society into their own vile image.


Do you reckon there's ever gonna be anything like, y'know, an intelligent, well-worked out reason behind your incessant, obsessive and retarded anti-Labour bile?
Just asking, like.
e2a; anybody who thinks the tories are better than Labour - or that starvation is preferable to minor infringements on civil liberties - as you do - is really too much of a moron to bother with tbh


----------



## Streathamite (Jun 27, 2011)

Bear said:


> Thatcher brought out and encoouraged the worst in people.  Before Thatcher, things like greed and selfishness and not giving a damn about anyone but me, me, me and my selfish self were seen as a bad part of human nature; things that people had but things that we should try and control and rise above.  Thatcher said those things were OK and encouraged them, very damaging to society they were.  Labour however are like the pigs on animal farm the movie.
> 
> By all means vote Labour, don't blame me when the thought police kick in your door.


But you are 100% a tory, so surely you'd be entirely in favour of Labour and the tories acting like, well tories...


----------



## embree (Jul 4, 2011)

Lib Dems in freefall in South West



> The slide in Liberal Democrat support in its South West heartlands shows no sign of halting, a Western Daily Press/Marketing Means poll has shown.
> 
> The Lib Dem poll rating in the region dropped by a further two per cent in June, putting the party on just 16 per cent overall. A mark of the party’s fall from grace since taking power, the Lib Dems have plunged 19 per cent in the region since the last election.



Labour up 14 points in the region from the last GE


----------



## ymu (Jul 4, 2011)

Do they have any unassailable seats? Laws is supposed to be the safest, isn't he? Clegg has the biggest majority, but I can't see him hanging on. They don't have many more on 10k+. Anyone know of any detailed polls from the Lib Dem 'safe' seats?


----------



## embree (Jul 4, 2011)

In the SW it's generally reckoned that Yeovil (Laws) is 'safe', very strong Liberal tradition, Paddy Ashdown's old seat etc etc. Other than that, nothing is safe in this region - Bristol West for example has a pretty thumping Lib Dem majority but it was held by Labour in 1997 and 2001 and could very easily go back as the anti-war voters become anti-coalition ones


----------



## ymu (Jul 4, 2011)

That's what I was hoping, thanks.

Now, how close is Laws to making it a duck next election?


----------



## embree (Jul 4, 2011)

To expand on the more local ones I know of - Somerton & Frome has been held by the Lib Dems by the skin of their teeth against very determined Tory assaults for years. Won't take many defections for it to be lost. Wells was won from the Tories after a great many years' of trying last year - it's taken them ages to persuade a determined core of Labour voters to switch to them so they'll already be lost again now. Thornbury & Yate may be an easier one to hold onto but again there's plenty of LD tacticals in that area that they'll have lost now. Bath has been Liberal since 1992 but I think it'll be gone as well - don't expect the Labour voters of Twerton and Oldfield Park to keep voting Lib Dem at general elections now


----------



## ymu (Jul 4, 2011)

They have a lot of three-ways with the Tories in their 'heartlands', don't they. And no more anti-Tory votes. Wonder how long it will take the stalking horse to leave the stable ... 

Is Huhne going to make the first move, or is he hoping to for a 'rebel' to clear a path for him?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

ymu said:


> Do they have any unassailable seats? Laws is supposed to be the safest, isn't he? Clegg has the biggest majority, but I can't see him hanging on. They don't have many more on 10k+. Anyone know of any detailed polls from the Lib Dem 'safe' seats?


Twickers is just about their safest seat, as a recent, highly scientific polling exercise* conducted in the constituency has revealed that the good people of that parish all seem to think the sun shines out of Vince Cable's arse




*I've been drinking in pubs a lot in Twickenham recently


----------



## embree (Jul 4, 2011)

Yeah, in the rural/semi rural SW they're the anti-Tory party so it's all about beating them by persuading voters in areas that vote Labour for the council (Midsomer Norton and thereabouts, certain estates in Bath, some parts of Weston etc etc) to switch to them for general elections. Lose more than a handful of those votes and that's it, they're fucked. Labour will start picking up seats in Cornwall too with the numbers quoted in that article


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

Huhne is dead in the water. Probably best to look elsewhere, but where's the talent?


----------



## ymu (Jul 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> Huhne is dead in the water. Probably best to look elsewhere, but where's the talent?


Who cares? Self-interested cunts are self-interested. Someone will be along to offer them a shred of electability by being seen to help bring down the coalition, surely?


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

ymu said:


> They have a lot of three-ways with the Tories in their 'heartlands', don't they. And no more anti-Tory votes. Wonder how long it will take the stalking horse to leave the stable ...


It's exactly the same in the SW London heartland (sutton, kingston, twickers, carshalton etc); loadsa nice, polite m/c families who are disgusted by the tories...and are now just as disgusted by the LDs


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 4, 2011)

ymu said:


> Who cares? Self-interested cunts are self-interested. Someone will be along to offer them a shred of electability by being seen to help bring down the coalition, surely?


actually, I'd say simon Hughes is just about their best bet, if he hangs on AGAIN in Bermondsey, as he's the only one with any real credibility left


----------



## killer b (Jul 4, 2011)

ymu said:


> Who cares? Self-interested cunts are self-interested. Someone will be along to offer them a shred of electability by being seen to help bring down the coalition, surely?


 
who though? take your pick, there isn't a lot of them to choose from - and now huhne is out of the way, i can't see anyone else preparing for the challenge.

despite their dreadful election results lately, it looks to me like they're holding together quite well. disappointing really.


----------



## ymu (Jul 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> who though? take your pick, there isn't a lot of them to choose from - and now huhne is out of the way, i can't see anyone else preparing for the challenge.
> 
> despite their dreadful election results lately, it looks to me like they're holding together quite well. disappointing really.


That Farron boy, possibly. There's another one making noises, but they're so indistinguishable ...


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> actually, I'd say simon Hughes is just about their best bet, if he hangs on AGAIN in Bermondsey, as he's the only one with any real credibility left


 
Since when did he have ANY real credibility in the first place?


----------



## killer b (Jul 5, 2011)

he does with streathamite for some reason.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Since when did he have ANY real credibility in the first place?


quite a lot with people in that area, but also with people who are disgusted with New Labour, recoil with horror at the very idea of voting Tory, and are desperately looking for ANY LD who isn't a total wanker.
which gives him credibility from not being a member of the govt despite his seniority, from being (however much I hate to admit this) a first-rate constituency MP, and from saying enough independendtly 'leftish' things over the past decade or so - in their eyes, the eyes of the people who once voted libdem, and who the LDs are desperate to win round again.
NB: all this does not alter the fact that the way he won the seat was truly vile, but does account for the fact of his apology and Tatchell's acceptance of that.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 5, 2011)

killer b said:


> he does with streathamite for some reason.


read my post above, and do try to get your head round the following awfully tricky point; I am *not* the universe and sum totality of that part of the electorate the LD desperately need to bring back round at some point.
Me = 1 vote. got that?
equally, given there is *zero* chance of me ever voting LD, his credibility with me is actually not the point; his potential credibility with the whole electorate actually _is_.
he _may_ be sellable to them - compared to any LD minister
e2a; what I think of hughes is neither here nor there, and I didn't actually mean how credible he is to me, for that reason


----------



## Belushi (Jul 5, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> a first-rate constituency MP,


 
He is this tbf, one of the best I've ever met.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 5, 2011)

Do we have any poster from  what where their traditional scottish seats? It'd be interesting to know what's happening to the membership in those seats. The old liberal Scottish and SW seats always gave them a base but if they go they could be destroyed as a party.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 5, 2011)

I agree with what Streathamite said about Hughes. I've lived in Hughes' seat since 2005 and although I don't know the ins and outs of how he got to where he is now, I am aware that lots of people living here think that if you want things to change for better locally, you can't get it done without Hughes' endorsement. His people appear to have a pretty good grip on dealing with issues locally i.e. wanna save local post office? wanna bump poor kids for scholarships to Alleyn School in Dulwich? there is only person who can do it and that's Hughes. If there is a ward/cancer care unit opening locally, some school tree planting, some library reopening after a refurb, he'll always be there shaking hands and pockets. Sits ona privy council too if I am not wrong. Pretends to be green too, and people like it here, I've seen him cycling a couple of times on the Westminster Bridge Road in the mornings.


----------



## Santino (Jul 5, 2011)

I still reckon he's played by Geoffrey Fairbrother from Hi-De-Hi.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2011)

Being a good constituency mp gets you a good reputation locally. It does very little for you on the national level. Hughes national credibility is far more likely to be based on his pathetic behavior over the fees vote and his persistent hard talk followed by craven retreats.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 5, 2011)

embree said:


> Yeah, in the rural/semi rural SW they're the anti-Tory party so it's all about beating them by persuading voters in areas that vote Labour for the council (Midsomer Norton and thereabouts, certain estates in Bath, some parts of Weston etc etc) to switch to them for general elections. Lose more than a handful of those votes and that's it, they're fucked. *Labour will start picking up seats in Cornwall too with the numbers quoted in that article*



You're having a laugh, right? 

Cornwall, as with most of the LD's rural seats in the SW, have the Tories in a strong second place with Labour so far behind they don't have a chance in hell, for example in both Cornwall North & Devon North Labour came fourth after UKIP.

A drift of LD voters to Labour will, generally speaking, let the Tories in - look at these figures from Cornwall (2010 election)....

*St Ives:*
Andrew George 	Liberal Democrat 	19,619 	42.7 	-9.1
Derek Thomas 	Conservative 	17,900 	39.0 	+11.7
Philippa Latimer 	Labour 	3,751 	8.2 	-4.4

*St Austell & Newquay*
Stephen Gilbert 	Liberal Democrat 	20,189 	42.7 	-4.5
Caroline Righton 	Conservative 	18,877 	40.0 	+5.1
Lee Jameson 	Labour 	3,386 	7.2 	-6.6

*Cornwall North*
Dan Rogerson 	Liberal Democrat 	22,512 	48.1 	+5.7
Sian Flynn 	Conservative 	19,531 	41.7 	+6.3
Miriel O'Connor 	UK Independence Party 	2,300 	4.9 	-0.8
Janet Hulme 	Labour 	1,971 	4.2 	-8.3

- The figures are much the same for the LD seats right across the SW, the exception being Bristol West.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/results/region/9.stm


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 5, 2011)

little_legs said:


> I agree with what Streathamite said about Hughes. I've lived in Hughes' seat since 2005 and although I don't know the ins and outs of how he got to where he is now, I am aware that lots of people living here think that if you want things to change for better locally, you can't get it done without Hughes' endorsement. His people appear to have a pretty good grip on dealing with issues locally i.e. wanna save local post office? wanna bump poor kids for scholarships to Alleyn School in Dulwich? there is only person who can do it and that's Hughes. If there is a ward/cancer care unit opening locally, some school tree planting, some library reopening after a refurb, he'll always be there shaking hands and pockets. Sits ona privy council too if I am not wrong. Pretends to be green too, and people like it here, I've seen him cycling a couple of times on the Westminster Bridge Road in the mornings.


 
Actually that's precisely my problem with Simon Hughes. He's run a long term PR campaign to get people to come to him with problems allowing him to "fix" things and blame all the problems on "Labour Southwark". Much of the time he's simply making sure the right department of the council knows what they need to know, something that can be done by anyone simply asking a councillor.

I don't like MPs who foster a cult of personality in their constituency. I don't like MPs that try to get the credit for everything positive that happens om their patch regardless of whether or not they have made any contribution to it. I don't like Hughes one little bit.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 5, 2011)

> > Yeah, in the rural/semi rural SW they're the anti-Tory party so it's all about beating them by persuading voters in areas that vote Labour for the council (Midsomer Norton and thereabouts, certain estates in Bath, some parts of Weston etc etc) to switch to them for general elections. Lose more than a handful of those votes and that's it, they're fucked. Labour will start picking up seats in Cornwall too with the numbers quoted in that article
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The polling actually suggests 8 gains for labour and 6 for the tories, the ld's holding onto two.


----------



## claphamboy (Jul 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> The polling actually suggests 8 gains for labour and 6 for the tories, the ld's holding onto two.


 
I spotted that, but it doesn't make any sense, e.g.



> The strong showing of Labour in Cornwall would see the Conservatives gaining at their [LD] expense.



followed by...



> Labour would eat into the Conservative domination of the region gaining seats in the east of the region, and the three way marginal in Camborne and Redruth.



How is Camborne and Redruth a 'three way marginal' with both the Tories & LD on around 37% and Labour on only 16%? 

Meanwhile in the east of Cornwall, Labour was around 4-7%, and in the east of the region most of the seats are held by the Tories, with around 47-57%, and the polling shows their vote is holding up.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

The electoral maths is really tricky here. The next election will have, in effect, no big third party. The pattern of 'tactical' voting will be entirely different.

The Greens have a very good chance of more seats at the next election. In the locals/regionals, they benefited at the expense mainly of Tories (IIRC), whilst the Tories maintained a no change result by hoovering up Lib Dems. But they're not in a position to pick up many (I am assuming three will be more than the Lib Dems get. )


----------



## little_legs (Jul 5, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Actually that's precisely my problem with Simon Hughes. He's run a long term PR campaign to get people to come to him with problems allowing him to "fix" things and blame all the problems on "Labour Southwark". Much of the time he's simply making sure the right department of the council knows what they need to know, something that can be done by anyone simply asking a councillor.
> 
> *I don't like MPs who foster a cult of personality in their constituency.* I don't like MPs that try to get the credit for everything positive that happens om their patch regardless of whether or not they have made any contribution to it. I don't like Hughes one little bit.


 
Me neither, but his office is a bit like a local mob. He does not do much, but can afford to rip the benefits of the fact that there isn't anyone challenging him on local issues or showing him for what he really is. Basically, we could have a Communist or a Green MP here, as long they had their fingers in everything and were the only viable alternative. I will not be surprised one bit if he gets re-elected in 2015.


----------



## little_legs (Jul 5, 2011)

Did I mention his biodiesel shit too? There are a few of these driving around London Bridge and Bermondsey:


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jul 5, 2011)

ymu said:


> The electoral maths is really tricky here. The next election will have, in effect, no big third party. The pattern of 'tactical' voting will be entirely different.
> 
> The Greens have a very good chance of more seats at the next election. In the locals/regionals, they benefited at the expense mainly of Tories (IIRC), whilst the Tories maintained a no change result by hoovering up Lib Dems. But they're not in a position to pick up many (I am assuming three will be more than the Lib Dems get. )



We can only guess what things will look like, I think we will probably see a big increase in the Green vote but it probably wont translate into seats, outside of maybe Norwich. 

I think the Libdems probably will hold on to their two or three Highlands and Islands strongholds and Cable's and Hughes' seats and that will be about that.

Tories and Labour will probably make equal gains, which given that the Tories are starting from a stronger base will probably mean a narrow Tory lead though not a clear majority.


----------



## ymu (Jul 5, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> We can only guess what things will look like, I think we will probably see a big increase in the Green vote but it probably wont translate into seats, outside of maybe Norwich.
> 
> I think the Libdems probably will hold on to their two or three Highlands and Islands strongholds and Cable's and Hughes' seats and that will be about that.
> 
> Tories and Labour will probably make equal gains, which given that the Tories are starting from a stronger base will probably mean a narrow Tory lead though not a clear majority.


 
The Tories might split the LD spoils with Labour, but they'll have a massive anti-Tory turnout in their two-way marginals against Labour.

But we got a hung parliament last year because there was no fucker left to vote for, and Labour are still running around like headliess chickens, so who knows? Potentially lots of space for locally-strong small parties and independents.


----------



## embree (Jul 5, 2011)

Given that Labour held Falmouth and Camborne in 1997 and 2001, it's not so terribly far fetched


----------



## killer b (Jul 9, 2011)

latest yougov: 

CON 35%, LAB 44%, LDEM 8%

labour one point ahead of the combined coalition vote again. i guess the last few days haven't been happy for the govt...


----------



## joevsimp (Jul 9, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> We can only guess what things will look like, I think we will probably see a big increase in the Green vote but it probably wont translate into seats, outside of maybe Norwich.
> 
> I think the Libdems probably will hold on to their two or three Highlands and Islands strongholds and Cable's and Hughes' seats and that will be about that.
> 
> Tories and Labour will probably make equal gains, which given that the Tories are starting from a stronger base will probably mean a narrow Tory lead though not a clear majority.


 

Think I agree with you there (just look at the Aussie Greens, 1 seat from 11% of first preferences)  Norwich south would take a lot of work to turn around though, and the vote tanked in London in 2010, a poor showing across the board outside of target seats that will be easy ammo for the ol' bar charts, although we had an ok set of local results this time, but we need to gain a few seats in the Euros this time, 2015 feels like a long way away


----------



## Kippa (Jul 10, 2011)

At the moment there are 57 Lib Dem MPs.  In the next election how many do you think there will be?  Personally I don't fancy our chances   I'd say we would be lucky if we get 25 Lib Dem MPs.


----------



## Roadkill (Jul 10, 2011)

Kippa said:


> At the moment there are 57 Lib Dem MPs.  In the next election how many do you think there will be?  Personally I don't fancy our chances   I'd say we would be lucky if we get 25 Lib Dem MPs.


 
That's still 25 too many.


----------



## ymu (Jul 10, 2011)

Kippa said:


> At the moment there are 57 Lib Dem MPs.  In the next election how many do you think there will be?  Personally I don't fancy our chances   I'd say we would be lucky if we get 25 Lib Dem MPs.


 
What are you talking about? It'll be a fucking miracle if they make it into double figures.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 10, 2011)

It'll be interesting at the next election.. I agree with you ymu but I wonder what will happen in Lab/Lib marginals where you might see tactical voting by tories who will vote for lib dems.. you might find they gain/hold a few of those seats on that basis.  I'd love to be a psephologist right now, would be totally fascinating to look at specific seats and try to plot out what might go on.
Obviously they are going to lose any lib/tory marginals and 3-way contests and probably will lose more ex-labour voters in those lab/lib marginals than they gain in tory voters.  I guess many of those ex-labour voters will go back to labour rather than moving onto greens or some other party or not voting at all but perhaps not..


----------



## embree (Jul 10, 2011)

Kippa said:


> At the moment there are 57 Lib Dem MPs.  In the next election how many do you think there will be?  Personally I don't fancy our chances   I'd say we would be lucky if we get 25 Lib Dem MPs.


 
Are you a Lib Dem then?

Fuck off and die


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 10, 2011)

BigTom said:


> It'll be interesting at the next election.. I agree with you ymu but I wonder what will happen in Lab/Lib marginals where you might see tactical voting by tories who will vote for lib dems.. you might find they gain/hold a few of those seats on that basis.  I'd love to be a psephologist right now, would be totally fascinating to look at specific seats and try to plot out what might go on.
> Obviously they are going to lose any lib/tory marginals and 3-way contests and probably will lose more ex-labour voters in those lab/lib marginals than they gain in tory voters.  I guess many of those ex-labour voters will go back to labour rather than moving onto greens or some other party or not voting at all but perhaps not..



Tbh, it all seems fairly predictable to me. They'll lose all their marginals, in toryland because anti-tory voters will abandon them, or in labourland because enough left-leaning voters will abandon them.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 11, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> Tbh, it all seems fairly predictable to me. They'll lose all their marginals, in toryland because anti-tory voters will abandon them, or in labourland because enough left-leaning voters will abandon them.



It might be that simple but the thing is that at the last election I think they were seen by many as a centre-left party.  Very few tories would have voted for them, where lots of labour voters did, not just tactically in tory seats but also those who were dissafected by the blair years/iraq war.
Now they are seen as a right wing party you'll get tories voting for them, but not labour voters.  The big question for me is whether those dissaffected labour voters will return to labour or go somewhere else.  If they return to labour (as polls seem to suggest) then I think you are right.. if they don't then I think you might see the lib dems picking up seats by gaining more tory votes than they lose in ex-labour votes.  But it'll not be more than a handful of seats where this might happen.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 11, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> Actually that's precisely my problem with Simon Hughes. He's run a long term PR campaign to get people to come to him with problems allowing him to "fix" things and blame all the problems on "Labour Southwark". Much of the time he's simply making sure the right department of the council knows what they need to know, something that can be done by anyone simply asking a councillor.
> 
> I don't like MPs who foster a cult of personality in their constituency. I don't like MPs that try to get the credit for everything positive that happens om their patch regardless of whether or not they have made any contribution to it. I don't like Hughes one little bit.


I agree entirely eric - but it's bloody effective!


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 11, 2011)

Kippa said:


> At the moment there are 57 Lib Dem MPs.  In the next election how many do you think there will be?  Personally I don't fancy our chances   I'd say we would be lucky if we get 25 Lib Dem MPs.


dream on yellowtory - you'll be lucky if you get to double figures


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 11, 2011)

BigTom said:


> It might be that simple but the thing is that at the last election I think they were seen by many as a centre-left party.  Very few tories would have voted for them, where lots of labour voters did, not just tactically in tory seats but also those who were dissafected by the blair years/iraq war.
> Now they are seen as a right wing party you'll get tories voting for them, but not labour voters.  The big question for me is whether those dissaffected labour voters will return to labour or go somewhere else.  If they return to labour (as polls seem to suggest) then I think you are right.. if they don't then I think you might see the lib dems picking up seats by gaining more tory votes than they lose in ex-labour votes.  But it'll not be more than a handful of seats where this might happen.


 
In Labour v Lib Dem marginals, tactical tory was already voting Lib Dem. The hardcore tory who didn't still sees the Cleggites as thwarting the Conservative gloriously pure agenda.


----------



## killer b (Jul 11, 2011)

CON 35%, LAB 43%, LD 10%; APPROVAL -31

2 points up from saturday... is it a murdochgate bump? 'only untainted party' and all that?


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Margin of error.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jul 11, 2011)

Kippa said:


> I'd say we would be lucky if we get 25 Lib Dem MPs.


 most people would say that was bad luck


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 11, 2011)

ymu said:


> Margin of error.


 
yup. Looks like 8% is them bottoming out ...


----------



## embree (Jul 11, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> yup. Looks like 8% is them bottoming out ...



Yeah, their range atm is 8-10% so no change really


----------



## ymu (Jul 11, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> yup. Looks like 8% is them bottoming out ...


Which is roughly what you'd expect. They were on a fairly steady 20-25% before May 2010. Two-thirds of their marginals were fought against the Tories (ie Labour voters where voting Labour couldn't stop the Tories), so you'd expect about two thirds of their electoral support to melt away when they came out as yellow Tories. The other third were voting LD to keep Labour out, so they're happy enough and probably not going anywhere.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jul 12, 2011)

if you're still a lib dem now - youŕe a goner...


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

But, they're too nice to be Tories.


----------



## Kippa (Jul 12, 2011)

I would admit that us Lib Dems have low poll figures at the moment, but in a few years I think we will bounce back.  A lot will depend on who is Nick Clegg's successor and how the public react to that person.


----------



## Superdupastupor (Jul 12, 2011)

fuck off Tory wannabees


----------



## ymu (Jul 12, 2011)

Kippa said:


> I would admit that us Lib Dems have low poll figures at the moment, but in a few years I think we will bounce back.  A lot will depend on who is Nick Clegg's successor and how the public react to that person.


You are kidding, right? 

The only possible way back for the Lib Dems is to bring this government down and convince people that it was because they had some integrity. The first is easy, the second is getting more unachievable every day this nonsense continues.

The Tories couldn't be in power without Lib Dem support. There is no way that the party that enabled them to vandalise the country by simply failing to walk out of government is going to be forgiven. The Tories will always be Tories, but the Lib Dems have the power to stop this right now. If they don't, they won't be forgiven within living memory. No chance.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jul 12, 2011)

Your on a 10% (or less) share of the vote for the next 20 years pal.

Still at least you managed to establish a small degree of electrol reform in return for colaborating with the tories ..... oh hang on.


----------



## BigTom (Jul 12, 2011)

Lo Siento. said:


> In Labour v Lib Dem marginals, tactical tory was already voting Lib Dem. The hardcore tory who didn't still sees the Cleggites as thwarting the Conservative gloriously pure agenda.



yeah, fair point.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 12, 2011)

Kippa said:


> I would admit that us Lib Dems have low poll figures at the moment, but in a few years I think we will bounce back.  A lot will depend on who is Nick Clegg's successor and how the public react to that person.


You have GOT to be kidding. Your party is in the deepest doo-doo imaginable. Ymu in post 1803 has it nailed. Your ONLY hope is to bring down the govt and publicly repent, with ALL LD govt ministers deposed


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 12, 2011)

In a few years, you'll all have been rounded up and mercilessly executed. There has never been any possibility of forgiveness.


----------



## co-op (Jul 12, 2011)

Not mentioned yet (that I've noticed) are the boundary reorganisations. Even the Yeovils and the Bermondseys aren't going to be that safe if they no longer exist. The LIb Dems could be utterly wiped out by these alone since they negate their historical roots, 'good-MP-ism' and local council bases. Throw in their massive unpopularity it's still not crazy to predict 0 seats for them in 2015, if this govt staggers on until then.

Of all the multiple public proofs on offer that Nick Clegg is just plain thick, the fact that he nodded through the boundary changes to be passed by legislation (when they are arguably a far profounder constitutional change than AV) might be the best. It'll destroy them.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Jul 12, 2011)

Your blood will fill the oceans.


----------



## redsquirrel (Jul 13, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> Your on a 10% (or less) share of the vote for the next 20 years pal.


This is why I'd be interested to know what's happening to the local party in their old scottish seats. Those seats and the ones in the SW always gave them a base (even in the 50s and 60s) from which to build on, if they go then I think the party could collapse.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 13, 2011)

Kippa said:


> I would admit that us Lib Dems have low poll figures at the moment, but in a few years I think we will bounce back.  A lot will depend on who is Nick Clegg's successor and how the public react to that person.


 
'A few years' is hardly a bounce now, is it? 

I've voted Lib Dem for 20 years because I've lived across the south of england and it's either been lib dem or tory. I now find out there's no fucking difference between you. 

You consistently lied to the electorate so that you could grab onto power, and now you've got it you're continuing the breakup of institutions which have been built up and paid for over the decades by all of us. I'm never fucking voting for you again and I hope there are a lot more like me. 

So congratulations you've probably wiped yourselves out across the south of england and handed loads of constituencies to the tories. I hope Clegg will rot in hell to join his spiritual mentors Thatcher, Blair, Brown and Cameron.


----------



## MellySingsDoom (Jul 13, 2011)

co-op said:


> Not mentioned yet (that I've noticed) are the boundary reorganisations. Even the Yeovils and the Bermondseys aren't going to be that safe if they no longer exist. The LIb Dems could be utterly wiped out by these alone since they negate their historical roots, 'good-MP-ism' and local council bases. Throw in their massive unpopularity it's still not crazy to predict 0 seats for them in 2015, if this govt staggers on until then.
> 
> Of all the multiple public proofs on offer that Nick Clegg is just plain thick, the fact that he nodded through the boundary changes to be passed by legislation (when they are arguably a far profounder constitutional change than AV) might be the best. It'll destroy them.



A fair few of us banged on about the boundary changes de-facto fix during the whole AV vote thing here, and were told by the "Yes to AV" side that it was a trifling irrelevance, and that it was FPTP that was the true evil. I (amongst others) pointed out that any "progress" made by AV would be instantly wiped out by the boundary changes in the Tories' favour.  I now remain sardonically amused by any growing realisation by the Orange Books that they'veshot themselves in the foot and other areas by allowing Clegg to wave through these changes.  As Flipper once sang, "Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha".


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 13, 2011)

Kippa said:


> I would admit that us Lib Dems have low poll figures at the moment, but in a few years I think we will bounce back.  A lot will depend on who is Nick Clegg's successor and how the public react to that person.


 
You SO don't get it.

You've been rumbled. You got your shot at a say in government and you showed your true colours as a bunch of opportunistic unprincipled liars who will say anything or do anything to get the chance to pose around pretending to be important.

If Clegg is replaced by ANY other Liberal Democrat it won't help. There is nothing you can do except close the party down and start again. Or better still just close it down and all fuck off.

I think that in a few years you will just be a bad memory.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

two sheds said:


> 'A few years' is hardly a bounce now, is it?
> 
> I've voted Lib Dem for 20 years because I've lived across the south of england and it's either been lib dem or tory. I now find out there's no fucking difference between you.
> 
> ...



This is exactly the attitude i've been hearing in Bristol and Somerset. Lot of people saying that if not voting lib-dems lets the tories win that constituency then they just don't care any more - end result is the same.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 13, 2011)

A last little pleasure will hopefully come when they contact me before the next election. If I can resist a bout of tourettes I'll say I'm not going to be able to get to the polls this year could they run me over to the polling station. If they have still got any party helpers left by then I'll hope for a full car with the starting question of 'are you lot REALLY going to vote for these scumbags again?'


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 13, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is exactly the attitude i've been hearing in Bristol and Somerset. Lot of people saying that if not voting lib-dems lets the tories win that constituency then they just don't care any more - end result is the same.



I shall still vote tactically at the next election to try and oust my local complacent tory dickhead, it'd be pointless doing anything else under the present system (which so many on this forum argued we should keep). If there'd been more tactical voting in a few more tory/lib-dem constituencies at the last election then we would probably have a Labour/lib-dem government now.

Fortunately I won't have to face the dilemma of voting lib-dem, I predict it'll be Labour who'll be running second to the tories in my constituency next time round.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2011)

Aside from the dishonest nature of your characterisation of the anti-AV votes, you've persistently said that you voted lib-dem as they had the only possible chance of beating the tories in your constituency. What has led to you now saying they will be behind labour?


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 13, 2011)

Labour finished second here in '97, '01 and '05. Last year it became clear that the Lib-dems were the party best placed to challenge the tories mainly due the unpopularity of the Labour government, and that was indeed the case. I predict it'll be Labour again by the next election.


----------



## sihhi (Jul 16, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I shall still vote tactically at the next election to try and oust my local complacent tory dickhead, it'd be pointless doing anything else under the present system (which so many on this forum argued we should keep).


 
Very few argued that, most people boycotted the rotten thing, just like they will boycott the elections.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 16, 2011)

Where i live the tories got in over lib dems by 66 votes as I recall. I'm looking at voting green next time, which is closest to what I'd actually liked to have voted all along. Means that much more chance of getting tory mp again, though  .


----------



## Fedayn (Jul 26, 2011)

New Angus Reid poll in Scotland has Support for Lib Dems 'down to 3%'



> The party, which secured 19% of the Scottish vote in the last general election, got just 3% in the latest survey by pollsters Angus Reid.
> 
> Support for UK coalition partners David Cameron and Nick Clegg is lower in Scotland than anywhere else in Britain, while Labour leader Ed Miliband enjoys the greatest support north of the border, the survey suggests.
> 
> ...



Those pesky voters, just not enough Cleggism up here to get them to vote Lib Dum......


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> This is exactly the attitude i've been hearing in Bristol and Somerset. Lot of people saying that if not voting lib-dems lets the tories win that constituency then they just don't care any more - end result is the same.


If that is so, and representative of general public opinion round your region, then that is excellent news.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

two sheds said:


> 'A few years' is hardly a bounce now, is it?
> 
> I've voted Lib Dem for 20 years because I've lived across the south of england and it's either been lib dem or tory. I now find out there's no fucking difference between you.
> 
> ...


hear, hear - thoroughly well put


----------



## magneze (Jul 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> the present system (which so many on this forum argued we should keep).


That's complete shite as you well know. Very few posters voted for the present system. Many voted against what they saw as a shitter system.

</derail>


----------



## Byway (Jul 26, 2011)

Much as I'd love to see the LibDems disappear at the next GE, it isn't likely to happen. In byelections (& the May elections) they are/were getting stuffed in urban areas, but doing OK(ish) in the suburban/market town/rural areas where they took over from the Tories a couple of decades ago. They've gained from Labour in Melksham & overtook them in Radstock. They've gained from the Tories in Tunbridge Wells & Torbay.

Bet they'll still hold the balance in a hung parliament.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 26, 2011)

magneze said:


> That's complete shite as you well know. Very few posters voted for the present system. Many voted against what they saw as a shitter system.
> 
> </derail>



I don't want to get into arguing about an issue that's now well in the past, but you're wrong. The way the referendum was presented meant that if you voted no, then you were clearly voting in favour of keeping the present system for the foreseeable future. Fair enough if you thought AV was shittier than FPTP, it was after all a choice of which system you thought was least worse.


----------



## Belushi (Jul 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don't want to get into arguing about an issue that's now well in the past, but you're wrong. The way the referendum was presented meant that if you voted no, then you were clearly voting in favour of keeping the present system for the foreseeable future. Fair enough if you thought AV was shittier than FPTP, it was after all a choice of which system you thought was least worse.



No one believed you then, no one believes you now.  

You still don't get it do you? Why the pro-AV camp lost so comprehensively?


----------



## magneze (Jul 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> I don't want to get into arguing about an issue that's now well in the past, but you're wrong. The way the referendum was presented meant that if you voted no, then you were clearly voting in favour of keeping the present system for the foreseeable future. Fair enough if you thought AV was shittier than FPTP, it was after all a choice of which system you thought was least worse.


My voting paper did not ask me to vote in favour of FPTP.


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 26, 2011)

magneze said:


> My voting paper did not ask me to vote in favour of FPTP.



And yet here we are after the vote _with _fptp in place for the foreseeable future. Like I said, if you think it's a better system, and most clearly did, then fair enough.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet here we are after the vote _with _fptp in place for the foreseeable future. Like I said, if you think it's a better system, and most clearly did, then fair enough.


As was pointed out on here - emphatically and repeatedly - one of the main reasons people voted against AV was not just cvos it's an even worse system than FPTO, but also because a 'no' vote thoroughly shafted the LDs


----------



## co-op (Jul 26, 2011)

Byway said:


> Much as I'd love to see the LibDems disappear at the next GE, it isn't likely to happen. In byelections (& the May elections) they are/were getting stuffed in urban areas, but doing OK(ish) in the suburban/market town/rural areas where they took over from the Tories a couple of decades ago. They've gained from Labour in Melksham & overtook them in Radstock. They've gained from the Tories in Tunbridge Wells & Torbay.
> 
> Bet they'll still hold the balance in a hung parliament.



You are completely ignoring the boundaries issue; in the whole of England and Wales there are only 5 places* where Lib-Dem constituencies join each other. Two of those (North Cornwall/StAustell and Lewes/Eastbourne) are just 2 adjoining seats, which might easily find their LD vote split into pieces.

Of the rest, one is a "3-er" (Hazel Grove/Withington/Cheadle) - but in a strip - again highly susceptible to splitting the LD vote and one is a "4-er"  with the same problem - in fact a worse one (Twickenham to Carlshalton via Kingston and Sutton) - a really long windy strip which the LDs could easily find cut into naturally tory chunks.

The only real "strongholds" on the electoral map at present (and don't forget this is close to the LD high water mark) are the clump of four seats around Somerton and Yeovil and the seats up in the north-east of Scotland. The latter now look highly susceptible to SNP attack.

Seriously, the LDs are not getting more than 10 seats in 2015 and it could be much worse.


* edit to add 6 places - I had forgotten Solihull and Yardley


----------



## Andrew Hertford (Jul 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> As was pointed out on here - emphatically and repeatedly - one of the main reasons people voted against AV was not just cvos it's an even worse system than AV, but also becuase a 'no' vote thoroughly shafted the LDs



Or an even worse system than fptp.....?

I'm sure lots of people did vote no purely to shaft the LDs. Can't say it was a big influence on my reasoning though, much as I detest them.


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> Or an even worse system than fptp.....?
> 
> I'm sure lots of people did vote no purely to shaft the LDs. Can't say it was a big influence on my reasoning though, much as I detest them.


sorry yes, apologies, my typo! Now corrected


----------



## Byway (Jul 26, 2011)

co-op said:


> You are completely ignoring the boundaries issue; in the whole of England and Wales there are only 5 places where Lib-Dem constituencies join each other. Two of those (North Cornwall/StAustell and Lewes/Eastbourne) are just 2 adjoining seats, which might easily find their LD vote split into pieces.
> 
> Of the rest, one is a "3-er" (Hazel Grove/Withington/Cheadle) - but in a strip - again highly susceptible to splitting the LD vote and one is a "4-er"  with the same problem - in fact a worse one (Twickenham to Carlshalton via Kingston and Sutton) - a really long windy strip which the LDs could easily find cut into naturally tory chunks.
> 
> ...



I'm looking at wards, which will be sub-sets of whatever the new boundaries look like. 

It's nice to think that the LibDems would go down to single figures, but a 10 - 15% poll rating in England, which is where they are at the moment, will give them 25 - 30 (in a smaller HoC), which is where my money is at the moment.


----------



## co-op (Jul 26, 2011)

Byway said:


> I'm looking at wards, which will be sub-sets of whatever the new boundaries look like.



That's fine but ward results are a bit dodgy to extrapolate up to constituency level - they are based on tiny turnouts etc,

But much more importantly, the boundary changes mean that the scattering of LD wards that return a LD majority are going to be divvyed up among constituencies that contain loads of wards without LD majorities. For Labour and the tories this doesn't happen since - by and large - their electorate is spread in broad geographical sweeps and it doesn't really matter for the most part where you divvy them (albeit a crucial advantage can be stolen by a little gerrymandering here or there).

LD seats are often little islands of orange surrounded by great swathes of blue and red; these LD seats will - pretty much all of them - simply vanish. And as I argued above, even the clumps of seats that the LDs have are not particularly promising. The Cornwall North + St Austell pair have a combined majority of about 4,000, they'll be lucky if they keep a seat there on post 2013 boundaries. Likewise the clumps in SW London and round the edge of Manchester are weirdly-shaped little enclaves that will probably yield no LD seats either.

Throw in a collapse in the LD vote and they are in deep shit - especially since their biggest poll drops are in areas where they have little clumps - eg the SW and Scotland. Throw in the fact that in Scotland (their real heartland) they face a renaissant SNP who can clearly reach LD voters in a way that Labour can't and they are in deep deep shit.



Byway said:


> It's nice to think that the LibDems would go down to single figures, but a 10 - 15% poll rating in England, which is where they are at the moment, will give them 25 - 30 (in a smaller HoC), which is where my money is at the moment.



I think they will achieve a miracle if they get over 20 seats - but much can change in 3-4 years. Mostly I think for the worse for the LDs. We'll know more when the Boundaries Commission report in 2013.


----------



## Byway (Jul 26, 2011)

co-op said:


> I think they will achieve a miracle if they get over 20 seats - but much can change in 3-4 years.



... if Clegg was run over by a bus, that would be worth 5 seats to them ....... ;-)


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 26, 2011)

co-op said:


> one is a "4-er"  with the same problem - in fact a worse one (Twickenham to Carlshalton via Kingston and Sutton) - a really long windy strip which the LDs could easily find cut into naturally tory chunks.


I can confirm this bit; The SW London Tories are rubbing their hands with glee, Labour are surveying Kingston with renewed interest (loadsa students and pissed-off parents of potential students) and the local LD parties down there are shitting themselves. Cable will prolly hang on, due to his massive personal vote - don't rate the others chances


----------



## co-op (Jul 26, 2011)

Streathamite said:


> I can confirm this bit; The SW London Tories are rubbing their hands with glee, Labour are surveying Kingston with renewed interest (loadsa students and pissed-off parents of potential students) and the local LD parties down there are shitting themselves. Cable will prolly hang on, due to his massive personal vote - don't rate the others chances



Got to say I don't see Labour getting much out of the area, the LDs might well keep a seat (as you say Cable has profile) but this all looks like clear tory gain to me.

And this is a traditionally strong area, yet the LDs will probably lose 3/4 seats there. There are - I think - 26 singleton LibDem seats across England, another one in Wales (Cardiff Central) - I can't really see how they can keep any of these on a massive boundary redistribution and a huge drop in their vote. And a fair few of the doubles and larger clumps are going to suffer in the same way as SW London.

It's just going to be horrible for them. And to think Clegg nodded this through while putting his pathetic AV option to a referendum. Honestly his political naivety is astonishing. I think he is genuinely a political simpleton.


----------



## co-op (Jul 26, 2011)

Byway said:


> ... if Clegg was run over by a bus, that would be worth 5 seats to them ....... ;-)



Maybe if he was beaten to death by his own party live on TV during PMQs.


----------



## two sheds (Jul 26, 2011)

co-op said:


> Maybe if he was beaten to death by his own party live on TV during PMQs.


 
Yes I might reconsider then, too.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 26, 2011)

co-op said:


> Maybe if he was beaten to death by his own party live on TV during PMQs.


 
We should propose this to our local Lib Dem branches. Might be a bit tough for me 'cos Clegg's my MP but it's worth a try lol


----------



## Byway (Jul 27, 2011)

co-op said:


> Maybe if he was beaten to death by his own party live on TV during PMQs.


 
Now that could be a pay-to-view event .....


----------



## Streathamite (Jul 27, 2011)

SpineyNorman said:


> Might be a bit tough for me 'cos Clegg's my MP


oh you poor bastard!
((((((((((((((spiney)))))))))))))
I do hope that you, as a constituent, are doing all you can to make the fucker's life hell...


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jul 27, 2011)

Of course


----------



## ericjarvis (Jul 27, 2011)

co-op said:


> Seriously, the LDs are not getting more than 10 seats in 2015 and it could be much worse.


 
I take issue with this sentence. The LDs getting less than 10 seats is BETTER not worse.


----------



## Santino (Aug 4, 2011)

> In yesterday’s Sun there were a set of approval questions for leading politicians (actually asked in July). William Hague came out top, with a net approval rating of plus 11, the only positive rating received. I expect some of that is still a residual effect from the period after he was Tory leader, appearing on things like Have I Got News For You. Most positive after that was Theresa May (-5), David Cameron (-9), Iain Duncan Smith (-15), George Osborne (-17), Liam Fox (-17), Michael Gove (-20). Down at the bottom were Ken Clarke (-32) and Andrew Lansley (-34).
> 
> Amongst the Lib Dem ministers included Danny Alexander has the highest rating on -17, followed by Vince Cable -20 and Chris Huhne -23. *Nick Clegg was the lowest rated of any politician asked about, with a net rating of -35.*



http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/3821


----------



## killer b (Aug 4, 2011)

danny alexander's high rating is presumably because most people still haven't a clue who he is.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Aug 4, 2011)

killer b said:


> danny alexander's high rating is presumably because most people still haven't a clue who he is.


 
Or they mistake him for Beaker.

Everyone has a soft spot for Muppets.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 4, 2011)

Andrew Hertford said:


> And yet here we are after the vote _with _fptp in place for the foreseeable future. Like I said, if you think it's a better system, and most clearly did, then fair enough.


 
It is a better system than AV. By a considerable amount. Which still means it's utter cack, but we aren't going to be offered anything better whilst we are ruled by three cliques of undemocratic party bosses set on serving the people who will pay their party the most.


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 4, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Or they mistake him for Beaker.
> 
> Everyone has a soft spot for Muppets.


 
I have a soft spot for Danny Alexander. Fox Tor Mire.


----------



## Voley (Aug 4, 2011)

I actually got polled on my opinion of the LibDems today. It was paradoxically satisfying ticking the 'Extremely Unsatisfied' box.


----------



## two sheds (Aug 4, 2011)

NVP said:


> I actually got polled on my opinion of the LibDems today. It was paradoxically satisfying ticking the 'Extremely Unsatisfied' box.


 
There wasn't a 'Tossers' box then?


----------



## ericjarvis (Aug 4, 2011)

two sheds said:


> There wasn't a 'Tossers' box then?


 
Only for the few remaining Lib Dem supporters. People who aren't tossers only got to choose between "I am extremely unsatisfied with the Lib Dems", "I loathe the Lib Dems with a passion", and "I am already engaged in a cull of the remaining Lib Dems in my locality", rather than "I am a tosser who still supports the Lib Dems".


----------



## Streathamite (Aug 4, 2011)

ericjarvis said:


> I have a soft spot for Danny Alexander. Fox Tor Mire.


bit of an old gag that, eric.....


----------



## weepiper (Aug 23, 2011)

poll today


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2011)

> He added: “I would urge the party leadership to reconsider its unswerving support for the programme of slashing welfare support – and to stand up for what its 2010 supporters believe in.


i doubt they even have 2010 supporters now tbh.


----------



## SLK (Aug 23, 2011)

I think there's a poll today (Guardian/ ICM) that puts them on 17%. How did that happen?


----------



## SLK (Aug 23, 2011)

It also has the Tories ahead of Labour.


----------



## killer b (Aug 23, 2011)

yougov has 44/35/9 today, in line with the last 8 months or so. someone's fucked up. hopefully ICM.


----------



## SLK (Aug 23, 2011)

Yes, but ICM has had them gaining for some time I think.

I can't find reference to today's apart from here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/aug/23/british-supports-harsher-sentences-riots


----------



## belboid (Aug 23, 2011)

difference largely explained in the post on http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Basically, it seems to be down to how one redistributes the say of someone who tells the pollster 'Dont Know' - yougov ignores them, but ICM say half of them will vote for the party they voted for last time, and that, almost by definition, helps the party who have lost most support since then.

So, hopefull,y its still just ICM making a mistake


----------



## Quartz (Aug 28, 2011)

killer b said:


> yougov has 44/35/9 today, in line with the last 8 months or so. someone's fucked up. hopefully ICM.



Could it be Libya? Or a backlash to the riots?


----------



## butchersapron (Aug 28, 2011)

***


----------



## killer b (Aug 28, 2011)

today's yougov has the lib dems still on 9, but the tories on 38 vs lab 41. i suspect the libya effect, as there's been little other movement since the riots.


----------



## BigTom (Sep 19, 2011)

And the conference bounce has taken the Lib Dems back into double figures:
YouGov/Sun results 19th Sept CON 36%, LAB 42%, *LD 10%*; APPROVAL -28

just.. can't wait to see where they are after the other two parties conferences..


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 19, 2011)

BigTom said:


> And the conference bounce has taken the Lib Dems back into double figures:
> YouGov/Sun results 19th Sept CON 36%, LAB 42%, *LD 10%*; APPROVAL -28
> 
> just.. can't wait to see where they are after the other two parties conferences..


We need to wait til after the three conferences to get true picture ,but a one percent increase is probablly margin of error


----------



## BigTom (Sep 20, 2011)

shagnasty said:


> We need to wait til after the three conferences to get true picture ,but a one percent increase is probablly margin of error



Yes - but during their conference they should be getting boosted in the polls.. and they aren't.. that is surely very bad news for them.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 28, 2011)

> Tonight’s YouGov/Sun poll has topline figures of CON 37%, LAB 43%, LDEM 8%.


The lib dems have actually dropped back


----------



## BigTom (Sep 28, 2011)

Not really, they are floating around 8%-10% at the moment.. ComRes had them at 12% yesterday iirc but ComRes is usually higher for a reason that has been explained somewhere by someone, to do with how YouGov and ComRes treat "don't knows" in their count.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 18, 2011)

The lowest lib dem on a comres poll

CON 33%(-1), LAB 41%(+3), LDEM 8%(-4), Others 17%(+1)


----------



## JimW (Oct 18, 2011)

Obviously one of them's made the tactical error of appearing in public and reminding us they exist, further eroding support beyond a rump of loons.


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Oct 18, 2011)

I've never seen "others" that high.

The LDs are bound to get a bounce back now they have defeated the energy giants by helping make them advise everyone to look for the cheapest tariff. The radicalism is just too groundbreaking for some though.


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 19, 2011)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> I've never seen "others" that high.
> 
> The LDs are bound to get a bounce back now they have defeated the energy giants by helping make them advise everyone to look for the cheapest tariff. The radicalism is just too groundbreaking for some though.


Yes Ukip and greens getting quite respectable ratings


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 30, 2011)

One point ahead of UKIP nationally in latest YG (pdf)


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Oct 30, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> One point ahead of UKIP nationally in latest YG (pdf)



Good stuff, hopefully they will soon just be lumped in with other parties.

I'm surprised the Greens haven't done better, to some extent they should be picking up left votes from the Libdems, and getting a voice in parliament especially an 'appealing' (and certainly high profile and hard working) one like Lucas should have done this by now. I suspect this is due to the rush back to Labour as the only party to be able to bring down the Coalition. Still I would have expected them to do slightly better even under fptp.


----------



## killer b (Nov 3, 2011)

they seem to be permanently floating at 8% now. can we get a 7?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 4, 2011)

3% 18-24.(pdf)


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 5, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> 3% 18-24.


The youngsters are being royally screwed,no wonder they have no faith in the lying libdems


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 5, 2011)

This is their future.


----------



## frogwoman (Nov 5, 2011)

90 years


----------



## Random (Nov 6, 2011)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> I'm surprised the Greens haven't done better, to some extent they should be picking up left votes from the Libdems, and getting a voice in parliament especially an 'appealing' (and certainly high profile and hard working) one like Lucas should have done this by now. I suspect this is due to the rush back to Labour as the only party to be able to bring down the Coalition. Still I would have expected them to do slightly better even under fptp.



Or maybe many more people are now suspicious of all political parties' ability to change anything? No party is gaining much because of the financial/economy/political crisis. It seems that a few faithful voters and activists are slopping between the big parties and a solid wedge of wingnuts are still into UKIP and BNP. But no breakthrough for anyone. Not to come over all LLETSA (ooh er) but I think there's a systematic crisis of political confidence, caused by decades of neo-liberalism and atomisation of society.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 11, 2011)

This weeks by-elections

Birmingham City - Sparkbrook: Lab 3932, Respect 2301, Lib Dem 395, Green 179, C 133. (May 2011 - Lab 4382, Respect 3413, Lib Dem 569, C 243, Green 192). Lab gain from Respect. Swing 6.3% Respect to Lab.
Ipswich Borough - St Margaret's: Lib Dem 942, C 871, Lab 439. (May 2011 - C 1167, Lib Dem 1107, Lab 671, Green 211). Lib Dem gain from C. Swing 2.5% C to Lib Dem.
Islington London Borough - St Mary's: Lab 1128, Lib Dem 641, Green 317, C 282, BNP 22. (May 2010 - Three seats Lib Dem 1927, Lab 1894, 1869, Lib Dem 1839, Lab 1774, Lib Dem 1667, C 1210, 1170, 988, Green 716, 612, 445, Ind 192). Lab gain from Ind. Swing 9.6% Lib Dem to Lab.
Redbridge London Borough - Aldborough: Lab 1436, C 1071, Lib Dem 87, Ukip 83, Green 64, BNP 34. (May 2010 - Three seats C 2806, 2706, Lab 2663, 2602, C 2497, Lab 2432, Lib Dem 979, 840, 786). Lab hold. Swing 7.4% C to Lab


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 15, 2011)

7% again tonight


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Nov 15, 2011)

Random said:


> Or maybe many more people are now suspicious of all political parties' ability to change anything? No party is gaining much because of the financial/economy/political crisis. It seems that a few faithful voters and activists are slopping between the big parties and a solid wedge of wingnuts are still into UKIP and BNP. But no breakthrough for anyone. Not to come over all LLETSA (ooh er) but I think there's a systematic crisis of political confidence, caused by decades of neo-liberalism and atomisation of society.



Good point.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 25, 2011)

Ukip on 8%

CON 35%, LAB 40%, LDEM 9%, Others 16%. The five point Labour lead is bang in line with recent YouGov polls, but it’s worth noting that within that 16% for others UKIP are on 8%, their highest since the European election in 2009.


----------



## Nylock (Nov 25, 2011)

while the libdem slide is funny as fuck.. the ukip rise is somewhat worrysome... hopefully this is a statistical 'blip' -i fear not though =/


----------



## belboid (Nov 25, 2011)

given the euro crisis, a few tories switching to the main anti-eu party is hardly surprising


----------



## Nylock (Nov 25, 2011)

i'm more thinking of the percentage of people who polled as 'other' (not an inconsequential number) congealing around the UKIP vote. Disaffected little englanders who may have comprised the 'soft' BNP vote (along with the angrier elements of the tory right ofc) having nowhere else to go to other than farage's bunch of clowns. That sort of thing.


----------



## shagnasty (Nov 25, 2011)

Ukip is more of problem to the tories .Europe is going to cause call me dave a lot of headaches lol


----------



## Nylock (Nov 25, 2011)

True, at the moment. I hope that they continue to be a royal pain in the arse for call me dave until the next election. The more shit that is sent his way the better 

I just hope that they stay confined to that context and don't end up making massive amounts of political capital out of, what could potentially be, a resurgence of ugly nationalism in the next few years off the back of increasing austerity in a deepening depression. It's bad enough that i am exposed to the amount of farage there currently is in the media -any more and i think i'll burst something vital..


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 25, 2011)

The UKIP voters may well come back to the tories in a GE - esp if it looks like labour might win.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 25, 2011)

And 8% for UKIP isn't going to get them any elected MPs, their support is reasonably even across the country, they don't have particular strong pockets of support like the LibDems, which would still get a few MPs elected on around 8%.


----------



## co-op (Nov 25, 2011)

Kaka Tim said:


> The UKIP voters may well come back to the tories in a GE - esp if it looks like labour might win.



Of course this is possible but I think for many old-school tories this is a major issue of principle - their hatred for the euro-softy Cameronites is akin to proper Labour activists hatred for Blair and Noo Labour. If they are being presented with a single-issue party that articulates that position perfectly (as well as the all the other batty old git issues which UKIP represents) I think they will vote UKIP.

The eurozone crisis is going to run and run - there's years in it one way and another (sovereign defaults in the south, 'deepening and enhancing' in the north etc etc). There will be a series of demands put on Cameron to accept a greater degree of political unification within the eurozone to allow rapid political responses to the kinds of finance market crisis that we've seen over the last few months. That's going to utterly piss off the whole eurosceptic back bench gang - the 81 Group. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a few tory backbenchers taking the UKIP whip before the next GE - and that might be a defendable stance at a GE, especially if the coalition is unpopular enough.

In addition we know that UKIP will be rolling in money via Stuart Wheeler and we know that they are already more than happy to stand against tory candidates even where those candidates are - in effect - representing the UKIP pov already. The best example from 2010 was in Wells where David Heathcote-Amory - a truly crackers eurosceptic - lost by 800 votes to the (pro-europe) Lib-Dems while UKIP took over 1700 votes. Strategic own goal but also statement of intent I think. By some estimates UKIP cost the Cons 20 seats in May 2010. Ironically of course that backfired as it forced the Conservative leadership into the arms of the LibDems and allows them both to ignore the headbangers. But this is a temporary patch-up, the issue is going to bubble and I think Cameron could find himself as utterly fucked by it as Major was back in the 90s.

I do enjoy watching it all unfold. Nothing like a tory party at war with itself.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 25, 2011)

co-op said:


> I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a few tory backbenchers taking the UKIP whip before the next GE



Not a hope in hell of that happening, it would be electoral suicide for any Tory to do that.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Nov 25, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Not a hope in hell of that happening, it would be electoral suicide for any Tory to do that.


Not so sure it would. There's certainly some constituencies where a "principled" exit from a Cameron-led Tory Party would play well enough with the electorate to make the seat winnable for a well-respected Tory incumbent running as UKIP.

As an aside, could there possibly be a better testament to the determination of certain types of voter to misdiagnose economic problems than voting UKIP. Crisis of neoliberalism and nearly 1 in 10 decides weirdo "libertarians" are the solution. Bonkers.


----------



## belboid (Nov 25, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Not a hope in hell of that happening, it would be electoral suicide for any Tory to do that.


Bob Spink came closeish. I could see a couple who were going to stand down anyway doing it, not many tho.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 25, 2011)

OK, I guess one or two that are going to stand down anyway could switch to UKIP, but there's no way in hell any Tory hoping to get re-elected would switch, nor would any ex-Tory standing under the UKIP flag get elected at the next GE, no matter how popular they are locally.


----------



## co-op (Nov 25, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> Not a hope in hell of that happening, it would be electoral suicide for any Tory to do that.



TBF I'd agree that the chances of getting re-elected under the UKIP banner would be low, but the bit you're missing maybe is the extent to which some tories really believe that the EU is a giant Franco-German plot to destroy the Righteous Path of whatever it is they think they're fighting for. They might sacrifice for that - I'd still take an outside punt on some defections before 2015.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 27, 2011)

Just a thought, but if it looked like the Tories were heading for defeat in 2015, might there not be an exodus of the Eurosceptic wing on the 'this might save me my seat' basis?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 27, 2011)

Whose seats would it save?


----------



## Quartz (Nov 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Whose seats would it save?



That would depend on local polling near the date.


----------



## DownwardDog (Nov 28, 2011)

co-op said:


> TBF I'd agree that the chances of getting re-elected under the UKIP banner would be low, but the bit you're missing maybe is the extent to which some tories really believe that the EU is a giant Franco-German plot to destroy the Righteous Path of whatever it is they think they're fighting for. They might sacrifice for that - I'd still take an outside punt on some defections before 2015.



In the Conservative party we don't believe anything beyond that the concentration of power and therefore wealth on our social class is a very good thing. The only way a Conservative to UKIP defection would make sense would be if it increased, or even guaranteed, electability. It would take seismic political events before that were ever the case so the possibility of such a defection is beyond remote.


----------



## Refused as fuck (Nov 28, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


> In the Conservative party we don't believe anything ...


----------



## little_legs (Nov 28, 2011)

*Lib Dems' new goal: be like Oxfam*

ST, November 27, 2011
Tony Grew

NICK CLEGG has been urged to rebrand his struggling Liberal Democrats in the image of Oxfam.

More than 18 months after his party took power in the coalition, marketing experts have been called in to address its declining support.

Last week Lib Dem MPs were summoned to a meeting to be told that the party needed "an inspirational vision that directs evolution of the brand".

It was suggested they should take credit for historic advances in "individual freedom and opportunity", such as the abolition of the slave trade under their 19th-century Whig predecessors.

Brand advisers told Clegg that his party should aspire to Oxfam's image as an organisation with clear goals of ending poverty and suffering.

A senior backbencher said a branding presentation was made to the party on Tuesday. "It was not terribly well received and needs a lot of work," he said.

Tony Cunningham, a Labour MP and the shadow international development minister, claimed Oxfam's supporters "would be disgusted at the idea" that the Lib Dems would try to model their public image on the charity.

*Support for the Lib Dems has nosedived from 23% at the election to 11% in this week's YouGov poll for The Sunday Times.*

A Lib Dem spokesman said: "There is a general recognition that we need to work harder to get our message across.

"It is no secret that we have been conducting this exercise. It is part of the process of transition from being the third party."


----------



## two sheds (Nov 28, 2011)

little_legs said:


> "It is part of the process of transition from being the third party."



... to being nothing at all.


----------



## Quartz (Nov 28, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


> In the Conservative party we don't believe anything beyond that the concentration of power and therefore wealth on our social class is a very good thing.



I think you could rewrite that: "In Parliament, we don't believe anything beyond the concentration of power and therefore wealth in our hands is a very good thing." Labour are as bad as the Tories.

Here's a clue: when was the last time a Minister or Secretary of State did the honourable thing and offered to resign for some fuckup? Yup, that would be Carrington in 1982 and the Falklands. 1982.


----------



## co-op (Nov 28, 2011)

DownwardDog said:


> In the Conservative party we don't believe anything beyond that the concentration of power and therefore wealth on our social class is a very good thing. The only way a Conservative to UKIP defection would make sense would be if it increased, or even guaranteed, electability. It would take seismic political events before that were ever the case so the possibility of such a defection is beyond remote.



Assuming you're being serious, you've completed ignored the utter self-destruction of the John Major govt 92-97 as a result of persistent sabotage from a small group of eurosceptic backbenchers, one of the key factors in their huge defeat in 1997. At a real stretch it _could_ be argued that the tories had become so arrogant by then that they assumed they would win GE after GE, no matter how shit they were (I think some of them really did think this after 1992) but that would ignore the fact that after two massive GE batterings they elected the arch-eurosceptic (and obviously hopeless) Iain Duncan Smith as leader.

It's interesting how many people on the left cannot see that many tories have very strongly held principles, especially on the EU, and that these clearly over-ride direct self-interest.


----------



## co-op (Nov 28, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> Whose seats would it save?



I daresay that Stuart Wheeler will be paying for the relevant polling to be done that would answer this question. "Not many" I guess, but probably a better reason to defect would be if you know you're going to lose your seat anyway.


----------



## claphamboy (Nov 28, 2011)

little_legs said:


> *Lib Dems' new goal: be like Oxfam*



They can fuck off if they think I am giving them any of my old cloths.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Nov 28, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> They can fuck off if they think I am giving them any of my old cloths.


 I'm just popping over to Nick Clegg's constituency office to rake over a box of old LPs and some slightly-odd smelling jumpers. Anyone want a bar of fair-trade chocolate while I'm there?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Nov 28, 2011)

claphamboy said:


> They can fuck off if they think I am giving them any of my old cloths.



Surely you've got a couple of pairs of manky old kecks you could donate?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 28, 2011)

ViolentPanda said:


> Surely you've got a couple of pairs of manky old kecks you could donate?



It would certainly be an improvement on what the good people of Sheffield have posted through the letterbox on previous occasions, namely dog shit.


----------



## killer b (Nov 28, 2011)

that must be very demoralising for his staff.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 29, 2011)

They work for Nick Clegg - opening a parcel full of shit was probably something of a highlight for them


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2011)

ime, the weirdos love working for him.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Nov 29, 2011)

Well I can think of at least one Lib Dem who'd enjoy it...


----------



## killer b (Nov 29, 2011)

every shit-eater has to start somewhere. and for now, nick clegg's office seems the most appropriate place.


----------



## little_legs (Dec 12, 2011)

> A YouGov poll for The Sunday Times today puts the Lib Dems on just 11%, with the Conservatives now almost neck and neck with Labour on 38% and 39% respectively.


----------



## magneze (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm sure LibDems were pro-Europe or something.

Are there any of their policies left?


----------



## barney_pig (Dec 12, 2011)

With clegg admitting that they have reached their " Richard gere" moment (I have nowhere left to go!),Cameron may well be powering up a full scale Tory assault on the coalition to force its break up in time for a spring snap election.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

49% of lib-dems support Cameron's actions - if the lib-dems lose the remaining tory-leaning wing of their support they could well be under 5% in the polls very soon.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2011)

barney_pig said:


> With clegg admitting that they have reached their " Richard gere" moment (I have nowhere left to go!),Cameron may well be powering up a full scale Tory assault on the coalition to force its break up in time for a spring snap election.



I didn't think that was possible before, but I now I wonder if you have a point.

I think Cameron has played a real blinder here, fairplay to him - it's a win win situation - he's not really changed anything structurally in our relationship with the EU and has not won protection for the City, but it looks as if he has, he has improved is standing with a sizable chunk of the electorate and his own back benchers, and he has wounded the Libdem Party as a whole.

I still say he doesn't need to call a snap election, if I was the Tories I'd want to keep the Libdem cannon fodder right through to 2015, but it would be tempting call a snap election before the Libdems have the chance to recover any ground if things improve economically in 2014.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

He can't do a snap election though even if he wanted to.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 12, 2011)

butchersapron said:


> He can't do a snap election though even if he wanted to.



Good point I forgot about the fixed term parliaments thing


----------



## Santino (Dec 12, 2011)

Can't he just fire all Lib Dem ministers, leading to the coalition breaking up and no government able to be formed?


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

We'd have a tory govt with no ability to pass legislation so VONC required. That wouldn't make the lib-dems vote against - terrified as they are of the peoples wrath.


----------



## Santino (Dec 12, 2011)

I concur that I can't rule out the possibility of the Lib Dems simply refusing to vote the government out while Cameron metaphorically pisses in their face.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

_The tory piss is a hard choice we have to face. We're all about hard choices._


----------



## Santino (Dec 12, 2011)

I'm sure they'd find a way, anyway. Some backbenchers could be persuaded to abstain in sufficient number. A phoney dispute with the Eurosceptics could be engineered.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 12, 2011)

Depend who wants an election now.  Whose going to table it? I think it'd have to be the tories.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 23, 2012)

Lib Dems surge to 16% and Tories hit 40%. Labour looks fucked.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/23/tories-five-point-lead-labour


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

Labour looks fucked? The tories went up 3 and labour down one. All other daily polls from the last 18 months up to this week have indicated a labour lead (large or small) and your conclusion is that a temp tory lead in a few YG polls and one ICM one (lib-dems on 31% remember the great accurate ICM polls of the past?) means labour are fucked?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

****double post - gmart and taffboi are twats****


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 23, 2012)

The coalition have got 56% between them, 21% more than Labour, despite all the cuts and the general cuntishness of the tories and libdems. At this moment in time Labour are not looking good.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

In the past 12 months they have had under 50% numerous times - did you shout that they are definitively fucked at that point or did you recognise that things can and do change over time?

(You get that in a GE you don't add the lib-dem and tory vote together btw?)

edit: or predict a complete labour victory during their 18 months solid of leading the polls?


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 23, 2012)

you have to be careful taking one poll as gospel,these polls as the fellow on uk polling always says have a margin of error


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> you have to be careful taking one poll as gospel these polls, as the fellow on uk polling always says have a margin of error



Especially a Guardian-selected**, designed-to-create-a-pseudo-big-'story' poll, from which they're engineering a sensational shitstormy headline++ no doubt ...

**And don't forget that like all mainstream media from time to time, the G most likely commission *several* polls from their favoured company, then pick the most suitable, the biggest-headline-friendly one, to highlight. I clearly speculate only  but ....

And should the Leveson enquiry perhaps be focussing on newspapers' _loose_ approach to statistical and representative accuracy with polls, and should it be examining the papers' commercial relationship with polling companies? 

++And don't forget that this latest poll story, shows the Guardian acting pretty near the same way as they did with them deliberately commissioning Len McCluskey's article, and cooking up a resulting mega-headline, last week.

Nick Clegg being 'finished' is so _last year_ for the Guardian ..... 

Third footnote (read the above two carefully folks!) : See, even 'servile worshippers of the Guardian'  ' like me can have a fair understanding of how it operates ....


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 23, 2012)

As others have said, this is only one poll, for the _Grauniad_, and it comes at a time when the Lib Dems have been relatively quiet.  Nevertheless, I really hope it doesn't signal the start of a revival in their poll ratings.  The one consolation in the whole sorry train crash of mainstream politics over the last couple of years has been the prospect of the Lib Dems being obliterated at the next General Election - and this year's local elections as well.


----------



## JHE (Jan 23, 2012)

Yes, it's just one poll and maybe it overstates the Tory-Lib Dem support. Nevertheless, it probably does reflect some regrettable facts about public opinion: many people more or less agree that there must be big cuts; many people take a hard line against people they perceive as benefit scroungers; Cameron was seen as standing up for Britain when he refused to sign a bit of EU shite recently; though many people agree with the Miliballs line that the govt cuts are too much too soon, that's about all that is understood about Labour's ideas; Miliband is seen as an odd bloke who won't be PM...


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

OMG, labour  have won the NEXT ELECTION!!!

Update - Labour leads by 1 - Latest YouGov/Sun results 23rd Jan CON 39%, LAB 40%, LD 8%; APP -25


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 23, 2012)

3 hours is a long time in politics.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

JHE said:


> Yes, it's just one poll and maybe it overstates the Tory-Lib Dem support. Nevertheless, it probably does reflect some regrettable facts about public opinion: many people more or less agree that there must be big cuts; many people take a hard line against people they perceive as benefit scroungers; Cameron was seen as standing up for Britain when he refused to sign a bit of EU shite recently; though many people agree with the Miliballs line that the govt cuts are too much too soon, that's about all that is understood about Labour's ideas; Miliband is seen as an odd bloke who won't be PM...


Polling over the hit labour have taken over the last week since the balls/miliband embrace of the cuts suggests 10% moving towards labour because of this and 13% moving away.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2012)

The Guardian tonight:

*Conservatives' popularity hits 22-month high despite Lords inflicting defeat on benefit caps*

The vote was on the 23rd. What date was the fieldwork carried out on? The 22nd.


----------



## Balbi (Jan 23, 2012)

The fixed term parliament thing needs more focus. A minority government with only a very, very slim minority of seats could form a parliament and govern for the full term, as the two thirds under the reduced number of mp's could be split all sorts of ways under the next election, and a determination to not let the opposition back in would fuel a party unity from the minority.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 23, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The Guardian tonight:
> 
> *Conservatives' popularity hits 22-month high despite Lords inflicting defeat on benefit caps*
> 
> The vote was on the 23rd. What date was the fieldwork carried out on? The 22nd.



If there was any accuracy at all in that sensationalist and tendentious linkage of two almost unrelated things, you can bet that 'despite' would be the wrong word to explain it


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Jan 25, 2012)

Balbi said:


> The fixed term parliament thing needs more focus. A minority government with only a very, very slim minority of seats could form a parliament and govern for the full term, as the two thirds under the reduced number of mp's could be split all sorts of ways under the next election, and a determination to not let the opposition back in would fuel a party unity from the minority.



What interests me about 5 year fixed terms and reduced MPs in line with that bill: This means less people elected, less often. The LDs also ballsed up the terms of the "change the system" referendum (the tories ran fucking rings round them) thus leaving us with FPTP for most of a generation.

All in all a triple fail on electoral representation from the large party most associated with it. You couldn't make it up.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Jan 25, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The vote was on the 23rd. What date was the fieldwork carried out on? The 22nd.





As for the polls, I've said before (quite possibly on this here thread) that I'd have more confidence in opinion polls if they said what percentage said "don't know" or "fuck the lot of them"

I'd imagine that both the latter options have got a higher poll since ed balls' "i agree with dave" moment...


----------



## shagnasty (Jan 29, 2012)

Being as last weeks sunday times poll caused so much excitement this weeks is

CON 39%, LAB 40%, LDEM 8%


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 29, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> As for the polls, I've said before (quite possibly on this here thread) that I'd have more confidence in opinion polls if they said what percentage said "don't know" or "fuck the lot of them"
> 
> I'd imagine that both the latter options have got a higher poll since ed balls' "i agree with dave" moment...


They do normally, but then they're re-allocated or exlucded (diff basis for different companies) to the parties for the headline figures. The raw data has them though.


----------



## Santino (Apr 16, 2012)

Behind UKIP in the latest YouGov poll.


----------



## SLK (Apr 16, 2012)

I thought I read something today that said that they would get 7 seats on current opinion polls, and that Cable and Clegg would both lose their seats.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 16, 2012)

Santino said:


> Behind UKIP in the latest YouGov poll.


Much more of this and Nigel 'the human muppet' Farage will be appearing on TV debates. (shudder)


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 16, 2012)

With apologies for a link to The Sun... 7 MPs at the next election? 

The living death of the Lib Dems is about the only cheering aspect of the current political scene though.


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Apr 16, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> With apologies for a link to The Sun... 7 MPs at the next election?
> 
> The living death of the Lib Dems is about the only cheering aspect of the current political scene though.


 
What is up with Chris Huhne's head in that pic? Looks squashed.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 16, 2012)

Threshers_Flail said:


> What is up with Chris Huhne's head in that pic? Looks squashed.


 
That was his ex-wife.  With the gear lever.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Apr 16, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> With apologies for a link to The Sun... 7 MPs at the next election?
> 
> The living death of the Lib Dems is about the only cheering aspect of the current political scene though.


 
Something to look forward to in 2015 if not sooner.


----------



## BigTom (Apr 16, 2012)

yep, 43% Lab, 32% Tory, 9% UKIP, 8% Lib Dem. ouch. or lol.  
http://bit.ly/HOwGqB?cc=8db77ed40d08f2504093275cbc36fcd0


----------



## SLK (Apr 16, 2012)

I'm no psephologist, but I see no reason it can't go lower as even the core realise there is effectively no party.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 16, 2012)

SLK said:


> I thought I read something today that said that they would get 7 seats on current opinion polls, and that Cable and Clegg would both lose their seats.



I live in Clegg's constituency and I'd be perfectly willing to stick a couple of hundred quid, at very short odds, on him losing his seat (I'd have to borrow it to place the bet but I know I can't lose). Especially given the size of the student vote round here.


----------



## SLK (Apr 16, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> I live in Clegg's constituency and I'd be perfectly willing to stick a couple of hundred quid, at very short odds, on him losing his seat (I'd have to borrow it to place the bet but I know I can't lose). Especially given the size of the student vote round here.


 
So what do you think he will do next election? Moved to some quango/ non-elected position/ stand for the Tories/ move to another constituency/ more than one of the above?


----------



## killer b (Apr 16, 2012)

Sepuku?


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2012)

He'll fuck off to Europe somewhere. Write a memoir about being the first Liberal deputy PM for seventy years (available for £1 at all good remainder shops within a month) and drink himself to death.

The only thing that could save him his seat would be a bleeding Save the NHS candidate


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 16, 2012)

SLK said:


> So what do you think he will do next election? Moved to some quango/ non-elected position/ stand for the Tories/ move to another constituency/ more than one of the above?


 
My guess would be either some bureaucratic position in the EU or a cosy seat in the Lords in recognition of his services to Torydom. (I'd prefer the latter, mainly because it would make his hypocrisy all the more obvious after years of calling for reform in the upper house). But they are just guesses, though I sincerely doubt whether he'll ever be an MP again.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 16, 2012)

belboid said:


> He'll fuck off to Europe somewhere. Write a memoir about being the first Liberal deputy PM for seventy years (available for £1 at all good remainder shops within a month) and drink himself to death.
> 
> The only thing that could save him his seat would be a bleeding Save the NHS candidate


 
Yep, I intend to vote Labour for only the second time in my life just to punish the bastard (the first was for Tony Benn in Chesterfield, 1997)


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2012)

He wont stay in Britain, he'll run as far away as possible.  But, in typical fashion, he'll do it arse over tit, and only get as far as Brussels or Madrid.

I'd be tempted to vote Tory to get rid of the cunt (if it was the only way...).  Not that I'd ever admit it, of course


----------



## SLK (Apr 16, 2012)

belboid said:


> He'll fuck off to Europe somewhere. Write a memoir about being the first Liberal deputy PM for seventy years (available for £1 at all good remainder shops within a month) and drink himself to death.
> 
> The only thing that could save him his seat would be a bleeding Save the NHS candidate


 
Sorry, what?
Oh, you mean someone standing against him could split the anti-Clegg vote? Wouldn't be being returned as the 8th Lib Dem MP be the most humiliating of all. Imagine Gove as leader of the opposition goading him. Or Miliband, weak as he is, agreeing (I think if Labour wins, this is what will happen often).


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2012)

SLK said:


> I'm no psephologist, but I see no reason it can't go lower as even the core realise there is effectively no party.


The psephologists are in unknown territory themselves. They're having trouble using uniform swing to estimate these things - some of the election projections based on last year's polls had Respect getting more seats than the Lib Dems. 

I think they only have about two genuinely safe seats - Cable and Laws.


----------



## SLK (Apr 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> The psephologists are in unknown territory themselves. They're having trouble using uniform swing to estimate these things - some of the election projections based on last year's polls had Respect getting more seats than the Lib Dems.
> 
> I think they only have about two genuinely safe seats - Cable and Laws.


 
No, Cable is out according to the 7 seats thing.
Using uniform projections and extrapolating would clearly always be stupid with fringe parties like Respect. But now clearly wrong to use with the LDs as well. I'd love to know who the self-proclaimed psephologist who predicted Respect doing well. But of course a psephologist (as much as I'd like to mock) would never say a 'swing' is 'it'. That's why I suspect 7 seats could be optimistic for the lib dems.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 16, 2012)

They're really going to get wiped out at the next GE, thing is as a party them having loads of MPs is a very recent thing, it wasn't that long ago they had less than 20 MPs...


----------



## ymu (Apr 16, 2012)

SLK said:


> No, Cable is out according to the 7 seats thing.
> Using uniform projections and extrapolating would clearly always be stupid with fringe parties like Respect. But now clearly wrong to use with the LDs as well. I'd love to know who the self-proclaimed psephologist who predicted Respect doing well. But of course a psephologist (as much as I'd like to mock) would never say a 'swing' is 'it'. That's why I suspect 7 seats could be optimistic for the lib dems.


It was in the first projection that UK Polling Report did after the 2010 election, with some excellent rubric explaining why it was bollocks and why we are in unknown territory due to the implosion in the Lib Dem vote. It's that implosion that caused Respect to start gaining seats using the usual model for turning votes into seats.

The result was achieved by using standard methods (usually but not always reasonably accurate) on polls taken in a completely new situation (Lib Dem support disappearing). They need constituency-by-constituency polling to say anything very meaningful and that's just too expensive so is rarely done (I have no idea what methods this latest projection used).


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 16, 2012)

The other thing to be concerned about when the LibDem vote collapses is where the vote goes, I'd bet a Tory majority after the next GE if the LD's die...


----------



## SLK (Apr 16, 2012)

That's why it could be worse.
What's funny is their "at best" figure - well Clegg knows.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 16, 2012)

ymu said:


> The psephologists are in unknown territory themselves. They're having trouble using uniform swing to estimate these things - some of the election projections based on last year's polls had Respect getting more seats than the Lib Dems.
> 
> I think they only have about two genuinely safe seats - Cable and Laws.


 
Apparently not, if the Sun/Yougov poll is to be believed!  Simon Hughes would be my tip for the only faintly recognisable Lib Dem to survive the apocalypse.  I won't know, though, since I will have died laughing by the time the results are all in.


----------



## belboid (Apr 16, 2012)

SLK said:


> Wouldn't be being returned as the 8th Lib Dem MP be the most humiliating of all. Imagine Gove as leader of the opposition goading him. Or Miliband, weak as he is, agreeing (I think if Labour wins, this is what will happen often).


 
naah, losing what was the wealthiest constituency in the country to _labour_ would be even worse.


ymu said:


> I think they only have about two genuinely safe seats - Cable and Laws.


they both rely on labour votes 'stopping the tories,' and they wont be getting them any more. And so closely tied to the government.....

Only the pisshead is safe


----------



## SLK (Apr 17, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The other thing to be concerned about when the LibDem vote collapses is where the vote goes, I'd bet a Tory majority after the next GE if the LD's die...


 
Not so sure. The first thing is that I would guess a small majority of LD votes at the last election would have been Labour ahead of Tory. Hence the desertion from the Lib Dems. But you're right; if you're a LD in favour of what they've done, just vote Tory. I actually think a large number of LD voters will be disgusted at what they saw in the few days after the election. I think they're Labour votes or non-votes in general.

And then there is the polarisation of the voters who have turned 18 (and the 22-26 year olds). Well they were Labour's to win. I hear nothing on EMA, minimum wage, or shit. If Labour lose, it's their own fault.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 17, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> The other thing to be concerned about when the LibDem vote collapses is where the vote goes, I'd bet a Tory majority after the next GE if the LD's die...


 
It's certainly a possibility.  However, most of the evidence seems to suggest that a lot - perhaps the bulk - of the Lib Dems' support came from people on the centre left who don't like the Labour party very much.  They're not going to vote Tory: they're either going to stay at home completely, hold their noses and vote Labour, or vote Green.  It's possible the Lib Dems will lose some voters to the Tories - probably on the 'we may as well vote Tory if that's what we're getting' principle - but that should mainly be in yellow/blue swing areas, and not where a Labour, Green or left vote was ever very likely anyway.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 17, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> It's certainly a possibility. However, most of the evidence seems to suggest that a lot - perhaps the bulk - of the Lib Dems' support came from people on the centre left who don't like the Labour party very much. They're not going to vote Tory: they're either going to stay at home completely, hold their noses and vote Labour, or vote Green. It's possible the Lib Dems will lose some voters to the Tories - probably on the 'we may as well vote Tory if that's what we're getting' principle - but that should mainly be in yellow/blue swing areas, and not where a Labour, Green or left vote was ever very likely anyway.


 
On rough calculation I reckon there's enough to stay at home, enough blue doves to vote Tory and hold their nose to usher in a 10-20 seat majority for Cameron. Reckon we might see a few like Charles Kennedy joining Labour...where as Simon Hughes types will stay with the aim of rebuilding the party with them at the helm...


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 17, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> On rough calculation I reckon there's enough to stay at home, enough blue doves to vote Tory and hold their nose to usher in a 10-20 seat majority for Cameron. Reckon we might see a few like Charles Kennedy joining Labour...where as Simon Hughes types will stay with the aim of rebuilding the party with them at the helm...


 
Oh aye, a Tory majority - albeit a thin one - is a very real possibility, but I don't believe the drive for that will come from disgruntled ex-Lib Dem voters.  If anything they'll be a countervailing factor.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Apr 17, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> Oh aye, a Tory majority - albeit a thin one - is a very real possibility, but I don't believe the drive for that will come from disgruntled ex-Lib Dem voters. If anything they'll be a countervailing factor.


 
I'm not so sure, I reckon LibDems are just as likely to vote Tory as they are Labour depending on what part of the south east they're in. What Cameron is probably hoping for is a few choice defections to UKIP before the GE too, means that any thin majority wont suffer the same problem Major had as the sharper end of the right will have gone but be replaced by more liberal conservatives in former LibDem seats...


----------



## belboid (Apr 17, 2012)

but losses of MP's to ukip would lead to a loss of votes to ukip - and not just in the strongly tory constituencies. there wont be that many gains from the libs, and plenty of those will be more right wing anyway - if only to differentiate themselves from the liberals


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 17, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I'm not so sure, I reckon LibDems are just as likely to vote Tory as they are Labour depending on what part of the south east they're in. What Cameron is probably hoping for is a few choice defections to UKIP before the GE too, means that any thin majority wont suffer the same problem Major had as the sharper end of the right will have gone but be replaced by more liberal conservatives in former LibDem seats...


 
We're talking about different things here, though, aren't we? You're talking about party defections (I almost wrote defecations then: O Freudian slip!), which are possible but IMO unlikely in any big way before a General Election. What matters there is where the voters go, and I still can't see people who voted for the Lib Dems in 2010 on the strength of their supposed commitment to the NHS, civil liberties, resisting big spending cuts, opposition to tuition fees, and so on, voting Tory now.

*edited - spending cuts, not buts!*


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2012)

SLK said:


> Sorry, what?
> Oh, you mean someone standing against him could split the anti-Clegg vote? Wouldn't be being returned as the 8th Lib Dem MP be the most humiliating of all. Imagine Gove as leader of the opposition goading him. Or Miliband, weak as he is, agreeing (I think if Labour wins, this is what will happen often).


 
No. Some of us have got to fucking live in Hallam you know. There'd be less shame in having Cameron as your MP


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2012)

> YouGov's Peter Kellner compares [the Lib Dem']s experience of getting into power to the titan arum – the plant that waits for decades to bloom and then does so with a terrific stink before lying dormant for several decades more.
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/16/lib-dems-lib-doom-poll-sun





Some discussion of the polling methods used:





> But the new YouGov survey cannot be brushed off so easily because it allows for these lessons of the past. First of all, it surveys voters only in Lib Dem strongholds – those places where a repeat of Clegg's 2010 performance would clinch the seat for his party, or at the least put it within their grasp. Secondly, it prompts respondents to think about their own seat and consider the potential for tactical voting. Even after these promptings, across these seats in which they took a commanding average of 41% of the poll at the general election, YouGov now finds the party has dived from first to third place to stand at 24%. That is a dismal score to have in your heartlands, and the party fails to improve on it much in any big chunk of the country, ruling out any hopes of salvation through a regional strategy of concentrating on, say, a relatively solid south.
> 
> So what, if anything, can the party do to see off the "Lib Doom" scenario? Helpfully, the YouGov poll distinguishes between seats in which the third party faces the Conservatives on the one hand and Labour on the other. Where it is ranged against Labour, the game looks be as good as up. In northern cities like Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield the Lib Dems have long thrived as an anti-Tory alternative, but dismal council elections last year already suggested they were paying a vast price for moving into coalition with the locally hated Conservatives, and the poll confirms that in such places Labour is now cruising on 45% against just 18% for the Tories and 21% for the Lib Dems. In other words, even in the unlikely event that the Lib Dems could recruit every Conservative voter to keep Labour out they still would not succeed.


Oh dear. 



> The picture is, however, different in the Lib Dem-Tory battlegrounds where town hall results were rather more mixed last year. Here, the Tories are in the lead on 33%, but the Lib Dems remain on 25% while Labour is on 24%. It is, therefore, in principle possible for the Lib Dems to rally enough Labour voters to an anti-Conservative banner in these sort of seats to have a chance of winning here.


Might not help the Tories. 

.pdf data summary from YouGov

The Sun report is quite different in places - in particular it says that the Tories will win more seats off the back of the collapsed LD vote than Labour, but they do state that this is based on 'uniform swing' assumptions. The Guardian article drills down and looks at the actual polling results in vs Labour and vs Tory constituencies, which gives a very different picture. Media biases, draw your own conclusions - the Graun approach makes a lot more sense, but it does make the already small sample size a fair bit smaller and thus less reliable (and I haven't checked their maths).


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2012)

Daily Mail Yougov poll:

Labour 43%,
Conservatives 32%,
UKIP 9%
Lib Dems 8%.

Take that you fourth party freaks.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2012)

too slow, old man.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2012)

Worth repeating!


----------



## Balbi (Apr 17, 2012)

It's worth noting that, I believe, UKIP is 9% and OTHER is also 8%. So that's 8% of Tories jumping right, and the rest of the Lib support heading Labour and Other. Abandon the good ship coalition.


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 17, 2012)

i can't quite work out that if the above list of candidates also had the nazis in there on 9% too , would it be funny?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2012)

Yes. Definitely.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2012)

Balbi said:


> It's worth noting that, I believe, UKIP is 9% and OTHER is also 8%. So that's 8% of Tories jumping right, and the rest of the Lib support heading Labour and Other. Abandon the good ship coalition.


Yep!

The poll suggests that Lib Dem support is the same as it was in 2010 in the vs Tory constituencies, whilst it has collapsed in the vs Labour constituencies (assuming the Guardian got it's maths right). If the numbers are solid, that suggests that what the Tories are gaining in right-wing Lib Dems is lost to UKIP in right-wing Tories.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2012)

trevhagl said:


> i can't quite work out that if the above list of candidates also had the nazis in there on 9% too , would it be funny?


The BNP are on 1%


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 17, 2012)

ymu said:


> The poll suggests that Lib Dem support is the same as it was in 2010 in the vs Tory constituencies, whilst it has collapsed in the vs Labour constituencies (assuming the Guardian got it's maths right). If the numbers are solid, that suggests that what the Tories are gaining in right-wing Lib Dems is lost to UKIP in right-wing Tories.


 
Yup.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2012)

ukip support is going to be pretty soft come a GE though, surely? when it comes to the crunch, they'll vote tory.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2012)

killer b said:


> ukip support is going to be pretty soft come a GE though, surely? when it comes to the crunch, they'll vote tory.


I think so. The real story here is the lib-dems becoming a regional party rather than a national one.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 17, 2012)

killer b said:


> ukip support is going to be pretty soft come a GE though, surely? when it comes to the crunch, they'll vote tory.


 
True in many cases, I'm sure, and I doubt there'll be a UKIP MP any time soon, but they'll probably make a stronger electoral showing than before anyway.  It's going to be interesting to see where they go at the upcoming local elections too...


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2012)

The Tories are in the process of upsetting quite a few of their core support with cack-handed tax economic policies. The only option for some of these will be a UKIP protest vote.

/speculation


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2012)

Goodwin had an interesting piece on how the voter profile of the core UKIP voter is changing towards the sort of people that the BNP were attracting at their height rather than the colonels and so on of popular perception.


----------



## Santino (Apr 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Goodwin had an interesting piece on how the voter profile of the core UKIP voter is changing towards the sort of people that the BNP were attracting at their height rather than the colonels and so on of popular perception.


You can prove anything with 'facts'.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 17, 2012)

Santino said:


> The Tories are in the process of upsetting quite a few of their core support with cack-handed tax economic policies. The only option for some of these will be a UKIP protest vote.
> 
> /speculation


 
Local, county, european, police elections between now and 2015. Expect a bit of a battering for Coalition.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2012)

killer b said:


> ukip support is going to be pretty soft come a GE though, surely? when it comes to the crunch, they'll vote tory.


If it looks like there'll be a crunch, probably yeah. Here's hoping that the media carry on being lazy and using uniform swing without telling extremist Tories that it's a little bit different in the LD vs Tory seats. Also, difficult to overestimate how much the UKIP wing of the Tory party hate Cameron. It'll depend a lot on how much more of their base the Tories manage to piss off before the next GE.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 17, 2012)

I really cant see the tories winning the next eleciton. They got 36% last time in circumstances which were poltically very favourable to them- even if they somehow repeat that performance, labour will still get enough lib dem deserters to stop the tories and probably boot them out. All the polling points that way. A lot of lib dem voters were anti-tory but sick of labour - next time around they wont go tory, they'll vote labour, green, indie or abstain.
Basically people predicting a tory majority are arguing that the tories will be more popular at the next election then they were in 2010 - despite rapidly retoxifying themselves, sending the economy into the toilet and swimming in sleaze.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Goodwin had an interesting piece on how the voter profile of the core UKIP voter is changing towards the sort of people that the BNP were attracting at their height rather than the colonels and so on of popular perception.


Maybe ukip are the tories SDP or is that wishful thinking on my part?


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I really cant see the tories winning the next eleciton. They got 36% last time in circumstances which were poltically very favourable to them- even if they somehow repeat that performance, labour will still get enough lib dem deserters to stop the tories and probably boot them out. All the polling points that way. A lot of lib dem voters were anti-tory but sick of labour - next time around they wont go tory, they'll vote labour, green, indie or abstain.
> Basically people predicting a tory majority are arguing that the tories will be more popular at the next election then they were in 2010 - despite rapidly retoxifying themselves, sending the economy into the toilet and swimming in sleaze.


The boundary changes haven't gone through yet. Not that I think it will make much difference. The Tory justification is rebalancing the number of voters in each seat, which is advantaging Labour at the moment. But it's only a really small component of Labour's advantage (I posted an academic paper on this once, but fuck knows where it is). The main reason Labour gets more seats than votes is that Tory voters ghettoise themselves more in a few rich seats, whereas the Labour vote is spread more optimally across a lot of constituencies. The Lib Dems trail way behind in seats because their vote is spread so thin (ie they have very few strongholds where the vote is enough to actually win a seat).

This is why the boundary changes have been so fraught. The Tories can't gerrymander it successfully without making some really strange constituency boundaries. The electoral commission turned down one proposal which had a single constituency linked up by the Mersey Tunnel!


----------



## 8115 (Apr 17, 2012)

I can't wait for the next general election.  I want Portillo style losses of seats.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 17, 2012)

Same





8115 said:


> I can't wait for the next general election. I want Portillo style losses of seats.


 
Absolutely. But I think it will be foolish to expect the libdems to do as badly as the current polls suggest. One factor that will swing it back is the media coverage giving them more weight than they deserve during the election build up.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2012)

Why on earth would that boost support for them? If anything it'll expose them to even greater public ridicule.


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2012)

That worked for them in 2010, when barely anyone knew they existed until the "I agree with Nick" debates. That won't work for them next time around, when 75% of their voters were voting against the Tories and now know there's no point.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 17, 2012)

8115 said:


> I can't wait for the next general election. I want Portillo style losses of seats.


all a general election is good for really. I'm quite tempted to leave myself on the voter rolls in Hornsey & Wood Green after I move so I can help ruin a Lib Dems life.


----------



## DrRingDing (Apr 17, 2012)

I believe they will do better than the current poll of 8%. The media will still present 3 major parties to realistically choose from and the 3rd will not be UKIP.....regardless of the polls.

Anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is with a small wager?


----------



## binka (Apr 17, 2012)

the next general election will be hillarious imo. especially looking forward to some of the libdem/tory marginals - should be brutal.

wonder how difficult nick clegg will find it to rally the troops


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 17, 2012)

binka said:


> the next general election will be hillarious imo. especially looking forward to some of the libdem/tory marginals - should be brutal.
> 
> wonder how difficult nick clegg will find it to rally the troops


can you imagine having that much passion for the Lib Dems? Fucking hell.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 17, 2012)

There's grown adults in that picture.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 17, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> There's grown adults in that picture.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2012)

isn't that just chris huhne?


----------



## ymu (Apr 17, 2012)

DrRingDing said:


> I believe they will do better than the current poll of 8%. The media will still present 3 major parties to realistically choose from and the 3rd will not be UKIP.....regardless of the polls.
> 
> Anyone willing to put their money where their mouth is with a small wager?


Not interested in vote share. Number of seats is where it's at.


----------



## JimW (Apr 17, 2012)

You can tell that lad in the t-shirt kept it covered up and his hat in his pocket on the way there so normal people couldn't see his shame.


----------



## binka (Apr 17, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> can you imagine having that much passion for the Lib Dems? Fucking hell.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 17, 2012)

binka said:


>


look at Mr.Cum Face at the front! Brilliant photo


----------



## rekil (Apr 17, 2012)

That chant in full


> The Lib Dems
> Represent!
> The Lib Dems
> Represent!
> The best chance this country has for transformation on a structural level


----------



## stethoscope (Apr 17, 2012)

Talking of which, can you guess the certain annoying 'voice of the young' blogger that said this?


> It is for these reason that I am going to be voting, in my constituency of Leyton and Wanstead, for the Liberal Democrat Party. Not because of Nick Clegg's golden tie, and not even because The Guardian says so. Because I want a new, more representative parliamentary system in which citizens can feel like their voices actually matter. I like the Lib Dems; I don't think they were sent to save us. I'd prefer to vote for a third party that had stronger links with workers' organisations. But the Lib Dems represent the best chance this country has for transformation on a structural level.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2012)

spookily accurate.


----------



## JimW (Apr 17, 2012)

Fair play to them, they're delivering that by dismantling all the welfare structures created after the war.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 17, 2012)

steph said:


> Talking of which, can you guess the certain annoying 'voice of the young' blogger that said this?


 
Two years is a lifetime ago


----------



## binka (Apr 17, 2012)

some good photos here taken in sheffield just before the last election where clegg was drawing a pretty big crowd
http://timgoode.com/?p=13






how is he going to rouse that sort of enthusiasm again?


----------



## Balbi (Apr 17, 2012)

He can rouse that enthusiasm, it'd just be that they'd throw stones.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2012)

binka said:


> some good photos here taken in sheffield just before the last election where clegg was drawing a pretty big crowd
> http://timgoode.com/?p=13
> 
> 
> ...


 
A public hanging.

And  at those Lib Demos (I just invented that, good innit?) and to think people are moaning about wind powered rave tricycles at left wing demos. I'll never cringe at the UAF again.


----------



## rekil (Apr 17, 2012)

steph said:


> Talking of which, can you guess the certain annoying 'voice of the young' blogger that said this?


The same one that said this a bit later on? 


> I didn't vote Lib Dem, I voted Labour, for John Cryer in Leyton


We need a thread about this malarkey.


----------



## where to (Apr 17, 2012)

> and not even because The Guardian says so


 
that "even" revealed all we ever needed to know about Laurie Penny.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 17, 2012)

Lib Dems in fourth with 8% holds for another day. Looking less of an outlier now.

CON 32%, LAB 41%, UKIP 9%, LDEM 8%​​http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5191


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 17, 2012)

binka said:


> some good photos here taken in sheffield just before the last election where clegg was drawing a pretty big crowd
> http://timgoode.com/?p=13
> 
> 
> ...


 

Ha ha - that picture is taken on the steps of Sheffield City Hall on the eve of the 2010 GE (you can see the pilars behind them), Now when Clegg comes to Sheffield it's in secret, and he's whisked in and out through a back door in whatever building he descends upon.

Also noteworthy in that picture is one Paul Scriven (under the G in gorgeous) - One-time leader of the council - He missed out on being the MP for Sheffield Central by about 150 votes in 2010. In 2011 LD's lost control of the council so he lost the leadership, and he's up for re-election in his ward seat this may and by all accounts is going down like a sack of cold shit. Cheerio!

I'm looking through those pictures now to see I recognise anyone. Then they will be ribbed.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 17, 2012)

to be fair a lot of those take back parliament people were green party members. Can't believe those lib-demos though. Jesus!


----------



## JTG (Apr 17, 2012)

Roadkill said:


> You're talking about party defections (I almost wrote defecations then: O Freudian slip!),


 
He was getting excited then


----------



## binka (Apr 17, 2012)

anyone know how their student societies are doing? i would have thought they'd be dying on their arses with all the usual careerist fuckers realising there's no future in the party?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 17, 2012)

they'll probably be reduced to doing entryist work in the green party.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 17, 2012)

Here are all of the Sheffield ones.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 17, 2012)

you bastards


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2012)

binka said:


> anyone know how their student societies are doing? i would have thought they'd be dying on their arses with all the usual careerist fuckers realising there's no future in the party?


 
They don't really show their faces at Sheffield any more. They held a stall outside the SU on "evidence based drugs policy" the other week which I trolled hard (I happen to have a bit of knowledge about drugs, enough to know that the 100% liberalisation line the kid on the stall was peddling was a crock of dangerous, irresponsible shite). They didn't want to talk about tuition fees, the NHS or benefits reform so I just kept asking them the same questions, dead loud, every time anyone walked past. That's probably harrassment but since they're Lib Dems I think it's ok.


----------



## belboid (Apr 17, 2012)

ha.

Second poll in a row puts the LibScum a point behind ukip, it wasn't just a one off, oddball result


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Here are all of the Sheffield ones.


 
The one on the far left (yeah right!) of that pic is the current president of Sheffield Uni Students Union. There was an (utterly disasterous) occupation after the public sector strikes, which was only saved by the uni, in response, trying to pass an injunction that would have banned any protest whatsoever on campus for something like 5 years. Obviously this managed to piss off even people who opposed the occupation. Anyway, this twat was asked to come in and speak to the occupation and basically refused to commit to anything, even in his personal capacity. Now I know why. This picture is going to get circulated fairly widely now. Thanks.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 17, 2012)

they had a kid on the stall? what young person would join the lib-dems now?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2012)

binka said:


> some good photos here taken in sheffield just before the last election where clegg was drawing a pretty big crowd
> http://timgoode.com/?p=13
> 
> 
> ...


very easily: as soon as he announces he will hang himself in public.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> they had a kid on the stall? what young person would join the lib-dems now?


someone who wants to remain celibate and has no desire for friends.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> they had a kid on the stall? what young person would join the lib-dems now?


 
Yeah, a student. He seemed like a proper free market nut case Orange Book type, though it's hard to be sure cos he didn't appear to be too keen on talking to me lol


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 17, 2012)

no child of mine will ever be a lib-dem.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> The one on the far left (yeah right!) of that pic is the current president of Sheffield Uni Students Union. There was an (utterly disasterous) occupation after the public sector strikes, which was only saved by the uni, in response, trying to pass an injunction that would have banned any protest whatsoever on campus for something like 5 years. Obviously this managed to piss off even people who opposed the occupation. Anyway, this twat was asked to come in and speak to the occupation and basically refused to commit to anything, even in his personal capacity. Now I know why. This picture is going to get circulated fairly widely now. Thanks.


 
Excellent - That pic is straight off the front page of the Sheffield Lib Dems website btw.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> no child of mine will ever be a lib-dem.


by the time they're born there won't be a liberal democrat party which should simplify matters.


----------



## killer b (Apr 17, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


> Excellent - That pic is straight off the front page of the Sheffield Lib Dems website btw.


not a heavily visited site these days, i expect.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 17, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yeah, a student. He seemed like a proper free market nut case Orange Book type, though it's hard to be sure cos he didn't appear to be too keen on talking to me lol


 
wtf? why not just be a tory?


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> no child of mine will ever be a lib-dem.


 
Any child of mine who even spoke of such a thing would be subject to a post-natal abortion!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> wtf? why not just be a tory?


yeh, cut out the middle man.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> by the time they're born there won't be a liberal democrat party which should simplify matters.


 
yeah, won't stop me telling the kids cautionary tales about it though. "Did you do your homework?" 
"yes"
"don't lie, or you'll end up like that Nick Clegg"


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> wtf? why not just be a tory?


 
Dunno, I'm guessing but he was a student so he might be more attracted by the politically correct Thatcherism of the Orange Bookers than the Thatcherism proper of the Tories? And since he was a "we should be free to sell crack outside primary schools" type I guess the social conservatism of the Tories might put him off? Or maybe he joined before the election and thought he could follow his misanthropic brand of politics and still maybe get laid one day if he joined the Lib Dems instead.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> yeah, won't stop me telling the kids cautionary tales about it though. "Did you do your homework?"
> "yes"
> "don't lie, or you'll end up like that Nick Clegg"


what, swinging from a rope under westminster bridge?


----------



## belboid (Apr 17, 2012)

UKIP ex-leader Lord Hesketh is on newsnight now.  Fuck's sake, he _is_ actually even more useless then Clegg


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 17, 2012)

belboid said:


> UKIP ex-leader Lord Hesketh is on newsnight now. Fuck's sake, he _is_ actually even more useless then Clegg


now that's saying something


----------



## binka (Apr 17, 2012)

belboid said:


> UKIP ex-leader Lord Hesketh is on newsnight now. Fuck's sake, he _is_ actually even more useless then Clegg


he's perked up a bit now but when he first started speaking he was so slow and confused sounding i thought he'd forgotten what he was talking about


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 17, 2012)

Pickman's model said:


> what, swinging from a rope under westminster bridge?


 
no, you can't say that to kids - in fact i'll save the whole concept of lib-dems for when they're old enough to know about that kind of shameful thing. Say, 18. Or better yet 25. 

"Mummy, what's a lib-dem?" 
"Silence! You will never speak of it in my house!"


----------



## Lo Siento. (Apr 17, 2012)

it's really easy to get a following for centre-right loon parties, isn't it? I mean you never see UKipers doing everyday street politics do you? The advantage of being a slightly more literal interpretation of the dominant ideology I suppose...


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 18, 2012)

How hard would it be for the lib dems to dipose clegg?

They must see that they are utterly fucked at the next election and the damage will be deep and lasting.

Their only hope is to replace clegg and bring down the coalition thus forcing an election - where they pledge to not go into coalition with the tories in the event of a hung parliament. That would maybe save them enough seats to salvalge them from utter irrelevance.

I see no signs of this happening - but maybe wipe out in the locals will concentrate a few minds.

Pisshead charlie to lead an anti-clegg coup?


----------



## ymu (Apr 18, 2012)

The logistics of deposing him are discussed on this thread, which I started in a fit of hopeless optimism a while back.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 18, 2012)

binka said:


> some good photos here taken in sheffield just before the last election where clegg was drawing a pretty big crowd
> http://timgoode.com/?p=13
> 
> 
> ...


It's worth remembering that for all the supposed 'Cleggmania' there was in the run up to polling day he only managed to increase the LD vote by 1%, in incredibly favourable circumstances. A dreadful performance really.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 18, 2012)

There was another poll of the 76 key lib-dem target seats that was missed due to the lib-dems in fourth place stuff the other day - when you look a bit deeper than the headline figures thing get even worse for them - they are being squeezed from labour and tory in their best seats, their most favourable seats, the ones with established personal votes and so on. Annihilation.


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2012)

someone just pointed out that the lib dems have finally achieved their dream of proportional representation: they have 8% of the seats in parliament, and 8% of the public support...


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 18, 2012)

killer b said:


> someone just pointed out that the lib dems have finally achieved their dream of proportional representation: they have 8% of the seats in parliament, and 8% of the public support...


 
I'm tweeting that. Who said it?


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2012)

dirty martini, previously of these boards, on fb. i haven't checked the figures though, so don't kill me if i'm wrong...


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Apr 18, 2012)

killer b said:


> dirty martini, previously of these boards, on fb. i haven't checked the figures though, so don't kill me if i'm wrong...


 
It's correct - One of Clegg's favorite lines is 'Well you can't expect a party with 8% of the MPs to get much of their manifesto across in a coalition. If you want us to actually vote the way we said we would then the answer is not to punish us for doing the exact opposite of what we said we'd do, but to vote more LD MP's into parliament'


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> no child of mine will ever be a lib-dem.


 
very few people will be able to AFFORD to have kids with these bastards in power


----------



## trevhagl (Apr 18, 2012)

killer b said:


> someone just pointed out that the lib dems have finally achieved their dream of proportional representation: they have 8% of the seats in parliament, and 8% of the public support...


 
and 100% of the Tory policies


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 18, 2012)

Well I've posted enough Steamroller pix, so how about this one now .... to dig out the huge number of failed LibDem council candidates/EX-councillors from where they'll have been buried on 3 May?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 18, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> no child of mine will ever be a lib-dem.


 
dash them on the rocks


----------



## killer b (Apr 18, 2012)

as if to mock me, they've only rallied to 10% today.


----------



## William of Walworth (Apr 18, 2012)

They'll still be buried on a figure even as 'high' as that ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2012)

Fuck me labour lead on 13%. Govt approval on -39%. Lowest ever i think.

CON 32%, 
LAB 45%,
 LD 8%, 
UKIP 7%
APP -39;


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 19, 2012)

lib-dems regional vote from latest YG

London: 7
South:12
Midlands/wales:5
North: 6
Scotland: 6


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 19, 2012)

all nicely timed for a coalition massacre on may 3rd.


----------



## youngian (Apr 19, 2012)

Apparently the Lib Dems have been overtaken by UKIP as the Tory right voters defect and Lib dem left of centre voters can take no more.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 21, 2012)

Spitalfields and Banglatown by-election in Tower Hamlets- LDs drop to 39 votes from 839 in 2010.


----------



## Roadkill (Apr 21, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Spitalfields and Banglatown by-election in Tower Hamlets- LDs drop to 39 votes from 839 in 2010.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Spitalfields and Banglatown by-election in Tower Hamlets- LDs drop to 39 votes from 839 in 2010.


 
Fantastic result.

Did Respect stand?


----------



## Belushi (Apr 21, 2012)

39 is friends, family and the local branch. It means no members of the public are voting for you at all


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Fantastic result.
> 
> Did Respect stand?


 
Nope


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2012)

http://mayorlutfurrahman.wordpress.com/2012/04/20/victory-in-spitalfields-and-banglatown/

I've found this from the mayor's blog


----------



## sptme (Apr 21, 2012)

Spitalfields and Banglatown by-election:

Kirsty BLAKE Green Party   99 votes
Richard Alan MACMILLAN Liberal Democrats   39 votes
Gulam ROBBANI Independent 1030 votes
Matthew James SMITH Conservative Party  140 votes
Ala UDDIN Labour Party  987 votes


----------



## Threshers_Flail (Apr 21, 2012)

Ha!


----------



## ymu (Apr 21, 2012)

The independent won. Bodes well for May.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2012)

ymu said:


> The independent won. Bodes well for May.


The independent is a creature of the mayor who himself is a product of internal labour bickering - the vote for the independent was a vote for the labour-lite mayor and everyone there knew it beforehand.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The independent is a creature of the mayor who himself is a product of internal labour bickering - the vote for the independent was a vote for the labour-lite mayor and everyone there knew it beforehand.


 Respect backed him.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Respect backed him.


And? Does that make him not the mayors creature?


----------



## articul8 (Apr 21, 2012)

Did I say that it did?


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2012)

_I merely brought the subtext out in the open_


----------



## ymu (Apr 21, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> The independent is a creature of the mayor who himself is a product of internal labour bickering - the vote for the independent was a vote for the labour-lite mayor and everyone there knew it beforehand.


Couldn't care less. It makes fuck all difference which bums are on which seats. As long as the main parties are getting a beating, I am happy about it.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 21, 2012)

ymu said:


> Couldn't care less. It makes fuck all difference which bums are on which seats. As long as the main parties are getting a beating, I am happy about it.


So am i, but the point was that _this particular result_ was down to specific local conditions that don't really exist elsewhere - and conditions that are essentially bickering between sections of one of the main parties - and so can't really be taken as indicative of a wider turn against the main parties towards independents natioanlly. I hope independents do do well, but this result doesn't really tell us much about whether they will. That was my only point.


----------



## ymu (Apr 21, 2012)

OK gotcha. You have dented my optimism.

I still think that the main parties will lose out big in areas where there is a credible alternative victor though. I don't recall the details now, but I seem to recall a hint of this happening in the General Election in 2010. 4th parties doing very well where there was a credible alternative to the main three. I'd expect that pattern to show up very strongly in May, unless there are just too many 4th parties competing for the honours. I don't know how well the anti-cuts candidates are coordinating with each other locally.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 21, 2012)

ymu said:


> but I seem to recall a hint of this happening in the General Election in 2010. 4th parties doing very well where there was a credible alternative to the main three. I'd expect that pattern to show up very strongly in May, unless there are just too many 4th parties competing for the honours. I don't know how well the anti-cuts candidates are coordinating with each other locally.


 
Coupled however with big swings to Labour from the Greens and left in those areas where they were seen as a bulwark against the Tories


----------



## ymu (Apr 21, 2012)

Yeah, there were multiple swingy-type things going on. I think that's the main reason the Lib Dems didn't increase their share of the vote overall - what they gained from Cleggsteria they lost to tactical voting in areas where they could not win.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Apr 23, 2012)

Latest you gov has con 32% lab 45% Lib dems 8% UKIP 7%.

ICM for the guardian has Con 33% Lab 41% LDem 15%.

ICM's methodology artificially boost the lib dem score cos they adjus the poll based on people previous voting records - but the whigs have fallen out of favour so drastically that it seriously distorts they're results.

The LDem poll rating seem to have been bouncing along at 10% for over a year now. I can't see it getting any lower then that before the general election (if someone hasen't deserted the yellow scum by now, what would clegg have to do?) Which is a shame, but 10% vote share is still pretty hillarious.

Looking forward to may 3rd.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 26, 2012)

Paddick - next london mayor:

JOHNSON 45%(-1),​LIVINGSTONE 36%(-5),​JONES 6%(+2),​PADDICK 5%(-1),​BENITA 3%(+3),​WEBB 2%(+1),​CORTIGLIA 2%(+1).​


----------



## two sheds (Apr 26, 2012)

"Go home and prepare for a nice cup of tea."


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2012)

Survation local election poll has:

​Lab 32% (+8%)
Con 26% (-17%)
LD 15% (-8%)
Green 8%
UKIP 7%
BNP 3%
Oth 9%.

which represents swings of:

CON to LAB swing 12.5%
CON to LD swing 4%
LD to LAB swing is 8.5%

Noticeable that the 3 main parties vote only totals 73% there rather than the 90% last time.


----------



## little_legs (Apr 30, 2012)

> According to the YouGov poll for The Sunday Times, Ed Miliband's party is on 40%, the Tories are on 29% and the Liberal Democrats are on 11%, with UKIP hot on their heels at 10%. The popularity gap between Cameron and Miliband has narrowed from 23 points to seven points in a week.


 
A bit more from the Sunday Times:



> Is David Cameron in control of government?
> Yes 39%
> No 47%
> Don't know 14%
> ...


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2012)

I know this is supposed to be about the lib-dems but it's clear the tories are heading towards the territory of a combined unpopular party, unpopular policies (now that their effect is becoming clearer), unpopular leading figures _and now an unpopular leader _at a time when they also appear mired in old school sleaze. Can get away with a couple of them for a while, but the full hand? Not without significant medium long term damage internally and externally.

Doesn't mean that they going to resign or sack cameron or anything mind, could even lead to a rapid radicalisation of their approach as they see the exits closing around them.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 30, 2012)

One term, scorched earth tories. Then leg it to the private sector to enjoy low taxes and pfi morsels.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2012)

One thing we should get a better idea of after this set of elections is how far the anyone but tory lib-dem tactical vote is holding up, whihc should give us some indication of the likely picture come the general election. if the tories pick up seats from the lib-dems then they are in real trouble - current swing (acc to survation anyway) is  4% con to lib-dem. I suspect that's part of the tory vote that's unhappy with the coalition but who will never vote labour (see alos the UKIP figures), the unraveling of the anti-tory lib-dem vote will only become apparent in the results rather than the polls (if at all).


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2012)

Surely they can't get lower than this?:
http://www.socialistunity.com/lib-dem-leaflet-condemns-labour-for-not-fighting-the-government-cuts/


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2012)

We've had two examples of similar (or exactly the same as that one i think if i remember right) on the why the lib-dems are shit thread over the last 6 months or so.


----------



## butchersapron (Apr 30, 2012)

Yes, they put the exact same leaflet out in Teather's area as early as march.


----------



## Balbi (Apr 30, 2012)

I do look forward to a good old chuckle on Friday morning.


----------



## articul8 (Apr 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Yes, they put the exact same leaflet out in Teather's area as early as march.


That's my area!  Didn't see that one.  They are taking the piss with this,


----------



## two sheds (Apr 30, 2012)

I was sat in a pub when a Lib Dem tv ad came one talking about voting Lib Dem to make sure (as I recall) the rich pay their fair share of tax. Near curdled me beer


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Any child of mine who even spoke of such a thing would be subject to a post-natal abortion!


 
Harsh! 

What about a home-administered course of mains-supply Electro-Convulsive Therapy instead?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Apr 30, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Surely they can't get lower than this?:
> http://www.socialistunity.com/lib-dem-leaflet-condemns-labour-for-not-fighting-the-government-cuts/


 
Never say never.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Apr 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I know this is supposed to be about the lib-dems but it's clear the tories are heading towards the territory of a combined unpopular party, unpopular policies (now that their effect is becoming clearer), unpopular leading figures _and now an unpopular leader _at a time when they also appear mired in old school sleaze. Can get away with a couple of them for a while, but the full hand? Not without significant medium long term damage internally and externally.
> 
> Doesn't mean that they going to resign or sack cameron or anything mind, could even lead to a rapid radicalisation of their approach as they see the exits closing around them.


 
Interesting article on the '301 Group' and it's attempt to take over the 1922 Committee of backbenchers in today's Guardian.

It's a clear attempt in my view to adopt some of the centrist and managerialist techniques of New Labour into the Tory party, and impose discipline over the more ideological elements.


----------



## shagnasty (Apr 30, 2012)

We have reached unknown territory with the latest polls ,a low tory rating a high ukip support the libdems making a pathetic increase ,but as butchers said the elections this week are the key.It is to be seen whether ukip vote holds up,lets hope so


----------



## Santino (May 1, 2012)

8% again in a yougov poll: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5314


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2012)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/may/01/phone-hacking-politics-live-blog#block-3



> I have actually been round the country talking to many, many people and I actually find that there a different mood compared to last year. Yes, there is a lot of anxiety about the economy. Yes, there is a lot of uncertainty about what the future holds, but I actually think we are getting a hearing. People are listening to us this year in a way that wasn't always the case last year.


 
 bless.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

He used the same line somewhere yesterday but added that _whilst I actually think we are getting a hearing they didn't yet feel they could bring themselves to vote for us..._

Note the yet.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2012)

It's almost a shame there aren't any LibDems left on the board for us to mock.

They've all run away


----------



## Santino (May 1, 2012)

I wish moon23 was here.


----------



## frogwoman (May 1, 2012)

where is he?


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2012)

Didn't he stand in the locals last year? If so, seppuku's a possibility.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 1, 2012)

Yup - he stood in Leeds, and confidently predicted he'd be sipping champagne the day after polling day and we'd all have to eat our words.

Never seen again.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

Beaten by a BNP in disarray in fact.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 1, 2012)

I guess trevhagl is still around.


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 1, 2012)

He stood in Calderdale and romped into 4th place behind the BNP.

Labour 1552 votes 
Tory - 828
BNP - 325
*Lib Dem (Moon23) - 197 *
​


----------



## Balbi (May 1, 2012)

Oh, LOL.


----------



## butchersapron (May 1, 2012)

Lib-dem on 7% in Wales for locals (labour up 27%!). Same figure for assemby and general elections.


----------



## Santino (May 9, 2012)

Level with UKIP on 8%: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5415


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 10, 2012)

7% according to yougov today

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/5423


----------



## London_Calling (May 13, 2012)

> *Ed Miliband hopes for poll victory as disillusioned Lib Dems flock to Labour*
> 
> YouGov survey suggests 'Ed's converts' are likely to propel him to an outright election majority


 









> Ed Miliband is in a strong position to secure an outright majority at the next election without having to win over swaths of Tory voters, according to a new opinion poll that analyses the views and voting intentions of recent converts to Labour.
> 
> The YouGov survey for the Fabian Society shows that "Ed's converts" – people who didn't vote Labour in 2010 but currently back the party – are made up mostly of disgruntled leftwing Liberal Democrats, many so disillusioned that they are very unlikely to vote for Nick Clegg's party again.


The quastion was "maybe", but never mind it's something at least.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/13/liberal-democrat-labour-ed-miliband


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 13, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> where is he?


 
He's writing an astonishingly shit Lib Dem blog. He's also on twitter, endorsed this from the Adam Smith Institute recently.



> *A Queen's Speech we'd like to see*
> 
> While there might well be some good things in the Queen's Speech laid before Parliament, there are some things which could be added to it.
> "I have decided to tackle youth unemployment by scrapping the Minimum Wage for those under 25 years of age."
> ...


 
Want to link to the twitter/blog cos it really is shocking but I think the FAQ says we can't reveal peoples real life names, he's completed the switch to far right US style "libertarian"/Orange Book poor hating scum. What a twat.


----------



## Roadkill (May 13, 2012)

Oh my God.


----------



## butchersapron (May 13, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's writing an astonishingly shit Lib Dem blog. He's also on twitter, endorsed this from the Adam Smith Institute recently.
> 
> 
> 
> Want to link to the twitter/blog cos it really is shocking but I think the FAQ says we can't reveal peoples real life names, he's completed the switch to far right US style "libertarian"/Orange Book poor hating scum. What a twat.


Said the boy was on a short short journey to the far far right.


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2012)

found him. it is shit


----------



## frogwoman (May 13, 2012)

The hard-core Greek lefty on #*Newsnight* says he wants "solidarity". I think he means "someone else's money"


----------



## Nylock (May 13, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's writing an astonishingly shit Lib Dem blog. He's also on twitter, endorsed this from the Adam Smith Institute recently.
> 
> 
> 
> Want to link to the twitter/blog cos it really is shocking but I think the FAQ says we can't reveal peoples real life names, he's completed the switch to far right US style "libertarian"/Orange Book poor hating scum. What a twat.


What the fucking fuck?!?!

I can't even think of anything else to say to that quote... Such a disconnection from reality is so epic in scale it's hard to find a point to begin...


----------



## JimW (May 13, 2012)

Reasonably funny from one of those news satire sites: http://newsthump.com/2012/05/04/scientists-to-breed-liberal-democrats-in-captivity/


> *Scientists will attempt to halt the rapid decline in Liberal Democrat numbers by undertaking a breeding programme that they hope will save them from extinction.*
> Lib Dem (Cleggius dupliciticus) numbers have been waning dramatically over the last two years, and scientists have revealed that unless action is taken then Liberal Democrats could become totally extinct by May 2015.
> “We need to act quickly,” urged Professor Frank Draycock.
> “We need to preserve Liberal Democrats for future generations to ridicule.”


----------



## killer b (May 14, 2012)

kicking their way through that 8% floor.

Latest YouGov/The Sun results 14th May CON 31%, LAB 45%, LD 7%, (UKIP 8%);


----------



## frogwoman (May 14, 2012)

"other parties"


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 15, 2012)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Some delusional lib dem poster on here says they cant understand why people are defecting from her party. In Sunday's poll, a quarter of lib dems belived they would retain the same number of seats at the next general election.
They really dont understand just how much people despise them do they?
They think those who have deserted them are floating voters, who will drift back again - not realising that most of them would rather lick pus from the corpse of a dead rat than vote cleggnuts again.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2012)

they can have their next national conference in the back room of nick clegg's local.

if he isn't barred.


----------



## belboid (May 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> In Sunday's poll, a quarter of lib dems belived they would retain the same number of seats at the next general election.


yeah, but that accounts for a mere two percent of the population (or rather, of that part of the population that said they would probably vote)


----------



## stethoscope (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> He's writing an astonishingly shit Lib Dem blog. He's also on twitter, endorsed this from the Adam Smith Institute recently.
> 
> ...



Christ!


----------



## Louis MacNeice (May 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> He stood in Calderdale and romped into 4th place behind the BNP.
> 
> Labour 1552 votes
> Tory - 828
> ...


 
Interestingly for this year's elections he moved his political ambition from the Town ward to the Warley ward (held in 2011 by the Lib Dems with a majority of 153); he lost to Labour by 113 votes.

Well done Moon - Louis MacNeice


----------



## BigTom (May 15, 2012)

killer b said:


> they can have their next national conference in the back room of nick clegg's local.
> 
> if he isn't barred.


 
Do you think anyone will bother to organise a demo for the lib dem conference this year? Or bother going?  Perhaps we'd be better off just going, nah, can't be bothered to demo at your conference, better off at UKIP's instead.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

BigTom said:


> Do you think anyone will bother to organise a demo for the lib dem conference this year? Or bother going? Perhaps we'd be better off just going, nah, can't be bothered to demo at your conference, better off at UKIP's instead.


 
We should go there but rather than taking banners and placards or chanting we should just laugh and point at them.


----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)

Perhaps they'll buy that disused pigeon shed from the BNP? you could probably fit all of them into it by now!


----------



## ViolentPanda (May 15, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Interestingly for this year's elections he moved his political ambition from the Town ward to the Warley ward (held in 2011 by the Lib Dems with a majority of 153); he lost to Labour by 113 votes.
> 
> Well done Moon - Louis MacNeice


 
The locals were obviously as impressed by his arguments as many on Urban were.


----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)

they'll have to set up front groups soon i'm sure lol


----------



## BigTom (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> We should go there but rather than taking banners and placards or chanting we should just laugh and point at them.


 
I foresee a Proletarian Democracy placard coming up featuring this image:







(I will make this into something for PD later)


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

DO IT!

Edit: I'm gonna bring the placard I made for the 26/3 demo but forgot to take with me. It's got Clegg standing at a podium pointing at something and underneath I've written "pull my finger". For someone as immature as I am when it comes to flatulence and toilet in general this is probably the funniest political placard ever made.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 15, 2012)

killer b said:


> they can have their next national conference in the back room of nick clegg's local.
> 
> if he isn't barred.


 
He can squeeze in on of those 'look, here's me with a pint of beer like a real person' photo ops while he's there. Those are always great.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (May 15, 2012)




----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


>


 
Lol he looks so uncomfortable like that


----------



## weepiper (May 15, 2012)




----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)




----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)

http://davidcameronpretendingtobecommon.tumblr.com/


----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)




----------



## frogwoman (May 15, 2012)




----------



## killer b (May 15, 2012)

keep things on track please folks.


----------



## Nylock (May 15, 2012)

It says a lot a bout the libdems that, even in a thread dedicated totally to them, it is still nonetheless being taken over by images and references to the tories. Just like they have ceased to be of relevance in their own government, so it is the case with their own thread


----------



## BigTom (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> DO IT!
> 
> Edit: I'm gonna bring the placard I made for the 26/3 demo but forgot to take with me. It's got Clegg standing at a podium pointing at something and underneath I've written "pull my finger". For someone as immature as I am when it comes to flatulence and toilet in general this is probably the funniest political placard ever made.


 
 HAve you gota  photo? 

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/workers-power-have-split.291950/page-57#post-11172740

for the Proletarian Democracy placard.


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

BigTom said:


> HAve you gota photo?
> 
> http://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/workers-power-have-split.291950/page-57#post-11172740
> 
> for the Proletarian Democracy placard.


 
Here you go: 

If you want the original photo I used I think I can dig it out.


----------



## BigTom (May 15, 2012)

SpineyNorman said:


> Here you go: View attachment 19222


 
Genius


----------



## SpineyNorman (May 15, 2012)

King Biscuit Time said:


>


 
That has to be the poshest pub in the world - it's got what appears to be a solid gold drip tray


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (May 15, 2012)

killer b said:


> keep things on track please folks.


 
He's drinking a pint of beer whilst not wearing a tie. As a regular member of the public I identify with that and in no way think he's a cunt.


----------



## William of Walworth (May 15, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> They think those who have deserted them are floating voters, who will drift back again - not realising that *most of them would rather lick pus from the corpse of a dead rat than vote cleggnuts again.*


 
   

Yeah but their being so delusional is a good laugh isn't it?


----------



## Kaka Tim (May 15, 2012)

They are like a political party version of 'The Incredible Shrinking Man'.

Maybe in the last sighting of clegg he will be  one inch high and running into a dolls house to escape a spider three times the size of him.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 15, 2012)

Latest poll shows Labour on 45pts, Tories on 31, UKIP in third...incredible fall for a mainstream party.


----------



## killer b (May 15, 2012)

That was yesterday. Today they're still 4th, but there's only 11 between the Tories and labour: 43/32/9/8


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 16, 2012)

Two different polling companies, YouGov being the more accurate of the two.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (May 16, 2012)

The differences are both in the margin of error lets not quibble.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (May 16, 2012)

The IMori is showing a downward trend of the LibDems, seems to me that YouGov are nailing it and IM will shortly follow.


----------



## belboid (May 16, 2012)

interesting bit on Libdem votes in locals versus Libdem 'votes' according to the polls. An average of seven points difference, pretty much evenly over the last twenty years. Which means they really are on under ten percent.

Arf, and indeed, arf.


----------



## Fedayn (May 16, 2012)

Update - Labour lead on 14: Latest YouGov/The Sun results 16th May CON 31%, LAB 45%, LD 9%; APP -37


----------



## redsquirrel (May 22, 2012)

UKIP polling ahead of them again in YouGov's results and ICM have them on 11% and others on 13%



> ICM’s monthly poll for the Guardian is out, and is a departure from the trend – topline figures are CON 36%(+3), LAB 41%(nc), LDEM 11%(-4), Others 13%(+1).
> 
> ................
> 
> Note that while the eleven point score for the Lib Dems would be unremarkable from any other company, ICM tend to give them their highest scores and 11 is the lowest in an ICM/Guardian poll since 1997.


----------



## BigTom (May 22, 2012)

I wonder what their conference will be like this year lol. will they be seeing 5% anytime soon? 

Oddly on the right sidebar the lib dems are listed as 7% for the yougov poll on the 21st, which is what I thought I saw on twitter, with UKIP at 8%.


----------



## Santino (Jun 11, 2012)

Projected to hold onto 10 seats based on current polls: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eeling-as-voters-flock-to-labour-7834906.html


----------



## Roadkill (Jun 11, 2012)

Santino said:


> Projected to hold onto 10 seats based on current polls: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...eeling-as-voters-flock-to-labour-7834906.html


 
Good news if true, but that result does partly contradict what UK Polling Report was saying on Saturday, namely that recent polls have actually shown a slight narrowing of the Labour lead.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 11, 2012)

By the side of that story:

Vince Cable to water down curbs on executive pay

(sorry, couldn't be bothered to find the other thread)


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2012)

Peter Kellners new commentary:

Clegg and his party are in even deeper trouble than the headline numbers suggest.

I say this to show that I bear no personal animosity when I say that Clegg and his party are in even deeper trouble than the headline numbers suggest. We know that they have lost more than half their general election support, and that Clegg has the worst ratings of the three main party leaders. We know that they have been hammered in local elections, and humiliated in the London mayoral contest and parliamentary by-elections. But look under the bonnet of our recent polls for the Sun and Sunday Times, and we find their plight is even worse:

Only 23% of those who voted Lib Dem in 2010 think Clegg is doing well as party leader. As many as one in three of the die-hards – those who have stayed loyal to the party – think he is doing badly.

Almost one in three of the die-hards now oppose the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. Among all voters, the proportion of Lib Dem-voting coalition supporters who would vote Lib Dem is now just 6%.

Until recently, most Lib Dem loyalists favoured a continuation of a Conservative-led government after the next election. Now they are evenly divided between Tories and Labour. Among those who voted Lib Dem in 2010, a clear majority now wants a Labour-led government after the next election.


----------



## articul8 (Jun 18, 2012)

Lib Dem MPs will be watching these numbers and getting twitchy.  Every chance that Clegg won;t be leading them into the next GE?


----------



## BigTom (Jun 18, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Almost one in three of the die-hards now oppose the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition. Among all voters, the proportion of Lib Dem-voting coalition supporters who would vote Lib Dem is now just 6%.




I don't understand what this means.. does it mean that if you take the group of people who voted Lib Dem in 2010, only 6% of them would do so today? Because that's not what is in the pdf's he links to in the article.
Perhaps it means that amongst the whole population, of the 8-9% who would vote Lib Dem, 6% are people who voted Lib Dem in 2010, and 2-3% are people who did not?


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2012)

He means that 23% pf the 2010 lib-dem voters think Clegg is doing a good job and within that lot c.33% oppose the coalition. So still 66% potential support in this group vs 6% nationally. But 1 in 3 lib-dem hardcore you stoppeth don't want to hear his fishy story.


----------



## Santino (Jun 18, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Lib Dem MPs will be watching these numbers and getting twitchy.  Every chance that Clegg won;t be leading them into the next GE?


They'd have to be stupid, spineless, unprincipled cunts not to get rid of him.


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2012)

Santino said:


> They'd have to be stupid, spineless, unprincipled cunts not to get rid of him.




The great thing about that article was that Kellner's personal support came through but he recognised that they had to now double-cross the tories as well to save themselves. _No one left to lie to._


----------



## butchersapron (Jun 18, 2012)

CON 33%, LAB 44%, LD 7%, UKIP 8%; 
APP -39


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 17, 2012)

Thoughts i would post this unless an outlier it is the poll before the party conference season

CON 30%(-4), LAB 45%(+5), LDEM 10%(-2)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


----------



## jannerboyuk (Sep 18, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> Thoughts i would post this unless an outlier it is the poll before the party conference season
> 
> CON 30%(-4), LAB 45%(+5), LDEM 10%(-2)
> 
> http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


i was kinda of expecting an olympic bounce for the tories - maybe countered by the hillsborough revelations.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 18, 2012)

That's a huge lead.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 18, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> That's a huge lead.


Yes and its from a pollster that usually gives labour lower leads and the libdems higher ratings


----------



## quimcunx (Sep 18, 2012)

jannerboyuk said:


> i was kinda of expecting an olympic bounce for the tories - maybe countered by the hillsborough revelations.


 
Maybe that is the olympic bounce, and it would have been even lower without it.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2012)

when was the last time labour were 15 points ahead?

were the ever even that far ahead at the peak of blairs leadership?


----------



## free spirit (Sep 18, 2012)

quimcunx said:


> Maybe that is the olympic bounce, and it would have been even lower without it.


maybe people remember it was labour that got the Olympics, and the tories that nearly fucked it right up before being pulled out of the shit by the army.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 18, 2012)

1997 they were 20 points up.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-has-a-20point-lead-over-the-tories-1280523


----------



## belboid (Sep 18, 2012)

free spirit said:


> when was the last time labour were 15 points ahead?
> 
> were the ever even that far ahead at the peak of blairs leadership?


they were that far ahead straight after the 2001 election.  Then they invaded Iraq.......

After which they _still_ got the occasinal lead of nearly 15 points.


(they havent _really_ got a 15 point lead now, this is a one off and wont be replicated)


----------



## co-op (Sep 19, 2012)

belboid said:


> they were that far ahead straight after the 2001 election. Then they invaded Iraq.......
> 
> After which they _still_ got the occasinal lead of nearly 15 points.
> 
> ...


 
The huge Labour leads of 1997 - 2002ish were more a symptom of the bizarre meltdown in the conservative party and their utterly shambolic election campaigns in 97 and 01 I reckon. I mean they elected _IDS_ leader ffs.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 19, 2012)

Balbi said:


> 1997 they were 20 points up.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/labour-has-a-20point-lead-over-the-tories-1280523


Bah, that's nothing - they had 30+ leads in 2001


----------



## Balbi (Sep 19, 2012)

The past is foreign polling country.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 23, 2012)

Finally! Lib-dems in 4th place.

 CON 30%(-2)
LAB 42%(+2)
UKIP 10%(+1)
LDEM 8%(-2),


----------



## Balbi (Sep 23, 2012)

Thats a new poll from the observer isn't it, some typically weird polling name.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 23, 2012)

Even though the LDs have been pushed into fourth place (and I hate them as much as the next person), I don't like seeing UKIP in third place.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 23, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Even though the LDs have been pushed into fourth place (and I hate them as much as the next person), I don't like seeing UKIP in third place.


 
I do - it splits the tory vote whilst they have next to no chance of getting any MPs.

BTW - there have been a couple of previous polls where the lib dems have slipped behind UKIP - but this one has a particualr beauty of its own as it comes on the eve of the lib dem conference.
UKIP will not get anything like 10% in a general  election - but even 5% is going to maker the tories task very difficult.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 23, 2012)

Think previous polls only ever head them level.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 23, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I do - it splits the tory vote whilst they have next to no chance of getting any MPs.
> 
> BTW - there have been a couple of previous polls where the lib dems have slipped behind UKIP - but this one has a particualr beauty of its own as it comes on the eve of the lib dem conference.
> UKIP will not get anything like 10% in a general election - but even 5% is going to maker the tories task very difficult.


 
I'm concerned that in the event of a hung parliament and if UKIP should win seats, the Tories will do a coalition deal with them.

Tbh, I'd rather see UKIP in 6th place and TUSC in 3rd. But, hey ho.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 23, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm concerned that in the event of a hung parliament and if UKIP should win seats, the Tories will do a coalition deal with them.
> 
> Tbh, I'd rather see UKIP in 6th place and TUSC in 3rd. But, hey ho.


 
I cant see UKIP winning any seats - they'll do well in the euros, but most of their support will vote tory to keep labour out in a GE. The purpose of UKIP is to drag the tories to the euro-sceptic right.


----------



## co-op (Sep 23, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> I'm concerned that in the event of a hung parliament and if UKIP should win seats, the Tories will do a coalition deal with them.


 
Can't see any way UKIP will win seats in a GE but there may be some kind of on-the-quiet pre-election pact with the tories in order not to lose eurosceptic seats (they effectively knocked out at least one really prominent eurosceptic in 2010 and got a wet blanket europhile lib dem instead).


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 23, 2012)

co-op said:


> Can't see any way UKIP will win seats in a GE but there may be some kind of on-the-quiet pre-election pact with the tories in order not to lose eurosceptic seats (they effectively knocked out at least one really prominent eurosceptic in 2010 and got a wet blanket europhile lib dem instead).


Farage was talking about such a pre-election pact this week.


----------



## co-op (Sep 23, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Farage was talking about such a pre-election pact this week.


 
Yes but he sounded a bit all-over-the-place I thought (all that wittering on about deals being "written in blood" etc). Anyway I can't really see the tories agreeing anything nationally in public. Better would be for UKIP to adopt a seat-by-seat approach and just choose not to stand against Tories they like and go hard against any vulnerable ones they don't.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 24, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> I do - it splits the tory vote whilst they have next to no chance of getting any MPs.
> 
> BTW - there have been a couple of previous polls where the lib dems have slipped behind UKIP - but this one has a particualr beauty of its own as it comes on the eve of the lib dem conference.


Yeah but IIRC they were YouGov which typically places LibDems lower, the fact that (at least) two companies are now showing them as joint 3rd place with UKIP is significant.

Totally agree with you re UKIP btw, with the right set of local and national circumstances ( Tory candidate in mired in sleaze etc) they could get very lucky and grab a seat at Westminster but they're a European party really.


----------



## DownwardDog (Sep 24, 2012)

There's some analysis on what it takes for UKIP to get to the big show here:

http://poliquant.com/can-ukip-win-westminster-seats/

Basically, they need a national support level of 15%+ then South West England becomes "UKIP Ground Zero".

Might move back if it happens.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 24, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> Yeah but IIRC they were YouGov which typically places LibDems lower, the fact that (at least) two companies are now showing them as joint 3rd place with UKIP is significant.
> 
> Totally agree with you re UKIP btw, with the right set of local and national circumstances ( Tory candidate in mired in sleaze etc) they could get very lucky and grab a seat at Westminster but they're a European party really.


 
My understanding is that UKIP wants to stand candidates against those Tories who are Euro-friendly.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 24, 2012)

From the Gruan lab 41% cons 31% libdems 14%

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/24/labour-lead-tories-icm-poll

the graun never shows labour with a big lead ,and i think it inflates the libdems.But 10% lead lead the first since IDS was leader


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 24, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> From the Gruan lab 41% cons 31% libdems 14%
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/sep/24/labour-lead-tories-icm-poll
> 
> the graun never shows labour with a big lead ,and i think it inflates the libdems.But 10% lead lead the first since IDS was leader


 
Their polling methodology appoints a share of votes on whole people voted in the last election - so the lib dem vote is exagerated (and by extension the labour share of vote is reduced) - becasue it does not take into account the extent of the desertion of lib dem voters - they are not floating/drifint voters - but typically feel disgusted and  betrayed.

UKpolling report is the place for poll spods - the bloke who runs it makes some good points about not looking at single polls and only comparing like with like - i.e you should not compare the IPSOS Mori poll with the you gov one - but only another IPSOS mori. Also not to look at one poll - but the trend in polls over time - becasue of marigin of error (about 2% either way).

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/

Looking at it this the polls have barely shifted since the start of the year - Tories averageing about 32 - 34, labour 41-43, lib dems 9-11. UKIP 7-9.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 25, 2012)

Lib Dem Sunny Hundal thinks they have a chance if Labour fucks up. he's even done some ground work for them. Check out his letter to floating voters.
http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/0...en-the-libdems-could-make-a-comeback-in-2015/


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2012)

the idea of tim farron as a leader who could help them win back the votes is an amusing one, if nothing else.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 25, 2012)

I see Farron more as a Butlins Redcoat tbh.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 25, 2012)

Swinson? Farrons doing the best 'pre-coalition' Lib Dem act 'i disagree with all of this and will never expect power again and build my party's manifesto pledges accordingly.'


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> Lib Dem Sunny Hundal thinks they have a chance if Labour fucks up. he's even done some ground work for them. Check out his letter to floating voters.
> http://liberalconspiracy.org/2012/0...en-the-libdems-could-make-a-comeback-in-2015/


a8's mate is as deluded as he is. All the pluralists together.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 25, 2012)

Balbi said:


> Swinson? Farrons doing the best 'pre-coalition' Lib Dem act 'i disagree with all of this and will never expect power again and build my party's manifesto pledges accordingly.'


Pity he has been writing piece after piece for the Guardian defending all they have done, justifying it, saying it should be rewarded. Every one of them is now a hostage to fortune by din of that 2 plus years of defence. Every last one of them can be nailed by just referring to what they said or did in the years since the election (and most of them doubly so if you pile what they said before the election on top of that).


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> a8's mate is as deluded as he is. All the pluralists together.


 
He overstates the case - the LD vote will be down on 2010 clearly at the next General Election.  But to say they're finished as a party, they're facing existential annihilation etc has no grounding in reality - it's based in understandable subjective antipathy and crude empiricism.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2012)

You fucking bluffer, yes rather than using "crude empiricism" we should make use of your crystal balls because they've been so accurate in the past. 

(Nevermind that Hundal's argument's are empirical anyway).


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2012)

they aren't empirical - he's saying "if they took approach x or had leader y" then this could have effect N (irrespective of whether he's right about this).  You lot are saying they're really unpopular therefore it follows they'll stay really unpopular. 

I haven't made wildly inaccurate predictions in the past.  I did underestimate the scale of the AV defeat, but knew which way the wind was blowing.


----------



## 8115 (Sep 25, 2012)

I knew AV would be a massive collapse.  I also predict lib dem crucifixion at the next election.  Looking forward to it.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2012)

These aren't empirical arguments?



			
				Hundal said:
			
		

> One is that the Libdem vote has started to become more clustered in areas where they have a significant local presence. So even if their share of the vote collapses nationally, they may hang on to a fair number of locally popular MPs.
> 
> Secondly, I suspect there are quite a few ‘shy-Libdem’ voters – people who may vote for them but won’t admit this to pollsters because Nick Clegg is so culturally toxic (there is a Tory precedent from the 1990). I don’t think it’s huge but I suspect it’s there.
> .........................
> All those three pitches will soften up the ex-Libdem vote. A change in leader will too, the polls already show it.


 


articul8 said:


> You lot are saying they're really unpopular therefore it follows they'll stay really unpopular.


You dishonest fucking turd, no one has argued any such thing.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2012)

depends whether they stick with Clegg or put some effort into detoxifying themselves.   They *could* get a hammering (although on balance I think they'll do badly but not catastrophically so), but that's far from certain this far out.  In any case, even a total massacre doesn't mean that there is now no strucutral role for a third - liberal - party in british politics.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> These aren't empirical arguments?


well they are somewhat empirical but beyond face value empiricism of the kind peddled on here.


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 25, 2012)

crude empiricism said:
			
		

> Yes it's not just the fact that they're share of the vote has dropped through the floor and that they're held in utter contempt by most of the electorate.
> 
> As you say they're bleeding members, they've lost over a thousand councillors, even before the coalition they were being forced out of their Scottish heartlands by the SNP and they are now the 4th party in Scotland, Wales and London. They are big enough that they won't completely combust but they are nothing for the foreseeable future.


 



			
				beyond face value empiricism said:
			
		

> A change in leader will [soften up the ex-Libdem vote] too, the polls already show it.


You fucking joker.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2012)

two examples of empiricism above - but the latter version abstracted from its context in an interesting overall analysis


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 25, 2012)

They have been bumping along at 10% for what? - 18 months now.
The only chance they have of improving that is ejecting clegg and then dissolving the coalition.
Which barely a single lib dem is suggesting they do.
Replacing Clegg with Cable or AN Other (which I dont think will happen either) will only give a temporary bump as people realise that it won't make any differnce to the coalitions policies.
The lib dems are far too self deluded to rebel to save their own skins - they still seethemselves as the 'nice' party, reasonable, sensible not all dogamtic like the others and they just need to work hard to get people to listen.

And the way they bleat on about their 'achivement' in raising the tax threashold is truly pathetic.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 25, 2012)

killer b said:


> the idea of tim farron as a leader who could help them win back the votes is an amusing one, if nothing else.


If Farron was a native American he would be called Little Frightened Rabbit


----------



## 8115 (Sep 25, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> And the way they bleat on about their 'achivement' in raising the tax threashold is truly pathetic.


 
To be fair to them, I was thinking the other day aboout how raising the tax threshhold had been their only significant acheivement.


----------



## Balbi (Sep 25, 2012)

Look at it this way, if Cameron is deposed - and Clegg too - who's their replacements? farron and a.n tory and miliband - at least they'd be on a plateau of inspirational leaders.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 25, 2012)

articul8 said:


> depends whether they stick with Clegg or put some effort into detoxifying themselves. They *could* get a hammering (although on balance I think they'll do badly but not catastrophically so), but that's far from certain this far out. In any case, even a total massacre doesn't mean that there is now no strucutral role for a third - liberal - party in british politics.


Clegg's finished. He failed to learn the lesson of John Simon and will pay heavily for his hubris.


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 25, 2012)

8115 said:


> I knew AV would be a massive collapse. I also predict lib dem crucifixion at the next election. Looking forward to it.


 
It was a bad move on Clegg's part to fall that wee illusion. Now his party is toast.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2012)

Clegg's finished.  But does that mean party *automatically* follows him?  I wouldn't say so.  They'll take a hit, but whether they can respond and minimise the damage is an open question at this point.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2012)

Mind you, thought experiment - suppose a sniper took Clegg out in Brighton tomorrow?   The media would go into overdrive about how he put the country first, joined the coalition even though it would mean taking ownership of tough decisions, endured flack with good grace, and spoke up for fair taxes and democratic reform...


----------



## killer b (Sep 25, 2012)

and everyone else would remember him as a judas cunt.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2012)

articul8 said:


> they aren't empirical - he's saying "if they took approach x or had leader y" then this could have effect N (irrespective of whether he's right about this). You lot are saying they're really unpopular therefore it follows they'll stay really unpopular.
> 
> I haven't made wildly inaccurate predictions in the past. I did underestimate the scale of the AV defeat, but knew which way the wind was blowing.


2/3 of the lib dem vote was an anti-tory vote.

How could they possibly hope to win that 2/3 of their support back after what they've helped the tories push through over the last 2 1/2 years?

it's fantasy land stuff by the remaining rump of the party that was and is utterly clueless about it's actual supporters motivations and political outlook at the last few elections.

to be clear on this, I don't entirely blame them for going into coalition with the tories given the parliamentary numbers after the last election, although I do think they could have been a lot more effective in taming tory policies by forcing them to run a minority government needing to negotiate for support on a case by case basis.

What I do blame them for is their actions within this coalition in terms of giving the tories and themselves free reign to rip up all manifesto commitments by both parties, and enact policies across the board that are far far worse than were in either manifesto, or than either party would ever have dared to take into an election. The absolutely crucial aspect of this being Nick Clegg an cohorts personal decision to rip up the economic policy on which they had been elected, and on which the majority of the public had voted for (lib dem and labour combined, plus others), and assist the tories in implementing a disastrous immediate cuts programme that's had devastating consequences for the UK economy, and condemned millions to years on the dole / scraping a living in part time work. This to me is utterly unforgivable, and Vince Cable can fuck right off as well, as he's every bit as responsible for allowing this to happen as the rest of them - more so as he's supposed to be someone who understands economics.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 25, 2012)

I dont think the lib dems can accept the fact that a massive chunk of their support were not 'lib dem supporters' but tacitical labour voters, and former labour voters who were fed up after 13 years of Brown/Blair and saw the lib dems as the same sort of thing as labour but less headbangy on civil liberties.

Without these voters - who are NOT going to come back - they are left with their 10% and electoral wipeout.

If they'd have done a 'confidence and supply' arrangment and checked the tories on things like the NHS, student fees and the savagery of the cuts - they would be doing much better in the polls and would be in a good position to hold the balance of power after the next election - which would have happened fairly shorty after 2010.

Even if the tories had held an election soon after and managed to scrape a majority - they would still be in a weaker position than they are now - with a united opposition and prey to rebelious back benchers.

Clegg effectively gave the tories a comfortable majority in the house in return for a ride in the limosines and a 'head prefect' badge - and in doing so he has gaurneteed the political irrelevance of the lib dems for the forseeable future.

They shot their load


----------



## 8115 (Sep 25, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> Clegg effectively gave the tories a comfortable majority in the house in return for a ride in the limosines and a 'head prefect' badge - and in doing so he has gaurneteed the political irrelevance of the lib dems for the forseeable future.


 
Completely this.  I've actually been shocked by how little they've done, and I didn't have high expectations in the first place.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 25, 2012)

free spirit said:


> 2/3 of the lib dem vote was an anti-tory vote.
> How could they possibly hope to win that 2/3 of their support back after what they've helped the tories push through over the last 2 1/2 years?


 
They will reposition themselves increasingly to recoup some - though of course not all of that.  In seats with an incumbent LD and a Tory challenger the LD vote is likely to hold up more than you might think at present, as people can rationalise their decisions in ways other than seeing the vote as a straight referendum on Clegg/Con-Dem coalition. 

They'll get a particular hammering at the Euros I would;ve thought.  Probably finish up in 5th place or something.  And after that a slow recovery towards a bad but not catastrophic GE result.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2012)

I can see them getting wiped out, probably down to lower than 10 MPs.

My area (Leeds NW) probably has one of their highest majorities on paper, but it's still a swing constituency, that was labour in 97, and tory before that (though with lib dem and labour both close to the tories), and it's got a massive student population, plus most of the 2 universities academic staff probably living in the area.

If the local labour party were to actually get its act together they should be able to take the seat, but that is a big IF, as the local labour party had been pretty devastated by members leaving prior to the last election I think.

Milliband needs to really pull his finger out, if he does then he'll wipe the floor with the lib dems and get a comfortable majority. Only problem is they also don't have the economic policies to get us out of this mess, with policies that seem to add up to just being not quite as bad as the tories / lib dems, when the country needs a radically different economic approach that actually says that borrowing money to invest in infrastructure at a time of historically low interest rates and high unemployment is the only sensible economic policy, and not doing so is complete madness.


----------



## free spirit (Sep 25, 2012)

articul8 said:


> They will reposition themselves increasingly to recoup some - though of course not all of that. In seats with an incumbent LD and a Tory challenger the LD vote is likely to hold up more than you might think at present, as people can rationalise their decisions in ways other than seeing the vote as a straight referendum on Clegg/Con-Dem coalition.
> 
> They'll get a particular hammering at the Euros I would;ve thought. Probably finish up in 5th place or something. And after that a slow recovery towards a bad but not catastrophic GE result.


you're talking rubbish.

I am that ex lib dem supporter and I live in that seat.

I predict this seat will be labour at the next election, unless the current MP spends the next 2 years rebelling on everything. So far though he's only really rebelled on tuition fees (which at the moment is the only thing that could possibly save him, other than the ineptitude of the local labour party).


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 25, 2012)

articul8 said:


> Clegg's finished. But does that mean party *automatically* follows him? I wouldn't say so. They'll take a hit, but whether they can respond and minimise the damage is an open question at this point.


I never suggested that the party would "automatically follow him". What I did say is that Clegg has failed to learn the lesson of John Simon. Would you disagree?

But then there's Clement Davies who presided over their post-war decline...


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2012)

killer b said:


> the idea of tim farron as a leader who could help them win back the votes is an amusing one, if nothing else.


 
No more Mr. Nice Guy,
no more Mr. Cle-ee-ean!


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 25, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> If Farron was a native American he would be called Little Frightened Rabbit


 
Running Doe.


----------



## binka (Sep 25, 2012)

nino_savatte said:


> I see Farron more as a Butlins Redcoat tbh.


according to the telegraph he's the third most influential lib dem!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...he-50-most-influential-Liberal-Democrats.html
he represents the party's conscience apparently!


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 25, 2012)

binka said:


> according to the telegraph he's the third most influential lib dem!
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...he-50-most-influential-Liberal-Democrats.html
> he represents the party's conscience apparently!


There's a few washed up bums in that list .Only libdem i have even little bit of respect for is Charles Kennedy


----------



## Balbi (Sep 25, 2012)

I met Tom Brake, deputy commons leader, at climate camp on blackheath in 2009. His P.A was absolutely bricking it at the entrance to the tent as we learned about non violent direct action.


----------



## articul8 (Sep 26, 2012)

After listening to Clegg's best efforts just now I fear they may actually think they're doing a good job!


----------



## Balbi (Sep 26, 2012)

Mirror, mirror.


----------



## chilango (Sep 26, 2012)

articul8 said:


> After listening to Clegg's best efforts just now I fear they may actually think they're doing a good job!



Why would you fear this?

The more deluded they are about the scale of their collapse the less they can do to limit it.

Unless, of course, you don't want to see a LibDem wipeout...hmm?


----------



## FiFi (Sep 26, 2012)

articul8 said:


> They will reposition themselves increasingly to recoup some - though of course not all of that. In seats with an incumbent LD and a Tory challenger the LD vote is likely to hold up more than you might think at present, as people can rationalise their decisions in ways other than seeing the vote as a straight referendum on Clegg/Con-Dem coalition.
> 
> They'll get a particular hammering at the Euros I would;ve thought. Probably finish up in 5th place or something. And after that a slow recovery towards a bad but not catastrophic GE result.


 
I live in a an area like the one you're talking about and there is NO WAY I'm falling for the "we're the only ones who can stop the Tories" lie again!
I will take my anti-war, anti-Tory protest vote to the Greens, which is what I should have done last time.
And I will blame myself for ever for breaking my own rule never to vote Tory!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 26, 2012)

chilango said:


> The more deluded they are about the scale of their collapse the less they can do to limit it.


 
and the more hilarious their obliteration will be at the next election.


----------



## Dan U (Sep 26, 2012)

Steve Bell - the lib dems are in a death spiral

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/sep/26/lib-dems-steve-bell-conference-video


----------



## free spirit (Sep 26, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> There's a few washed up bums in that list .Only libdem i have even little bit of respect for is Charles Kennedy


you mean the only lib dem MP who voted against the coalition agreement?

Maybe it's just the ex lib dem voter in me, but I've got a fair amount of respect for him for that at least.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 26, 2012)

The same Charles Kennedy who has spent the period since defending the coalition and doing all he can to support it?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 26, 2012)

The Graun claims that this is cleggs masterplan



> *Nick Clegg is trying to forge the **Liberal Democrats** into a new party* However, his creation is on electoral life-support and it is unclear if it has a viable future. The party used to be a receptacle for the protest vote, buoyed by the hope that electoral reform would eventually give them 100-plus seats in the Commons. Now the protest vote is going elsewhere and, with PR and Lords reform (backdoor PR) off the agenda for years, Clegg is trying to turn the Lib Dems into a mainstream party that can win by first-past-the-post. As Matthew d'Ancona put it in a column recently, he wants "nothing less than to create a third party of government; not an electoral dumping ground for the Undecideds, the Outraged and People Who Still Hate Blair, but a party ready to participate in future coalitions and bring its own distinctive approach to bear on government". But with the polls as they are, this new entity could face a virtual electoral wipeout in 2015.


 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/sep/26/10-things-libdem-conference-revealed

Which reveals just how utterly delusional clegg is and begs the question why the fuck the rest of the party are so willing to follow him over the cliff.

Lets tell the majority of people who vote for us to get to fuck and form a new party that appeals to about 72 people - now go back your constiuencies and prepare for government!


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Sep 26, 2012)

Dan U said:


> Steve Bell - the lib dems are in a death spiral
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2012/sep/26/lib-dems-steve-bell-conference-video


 
Rule bok.


----------



## treelover (Sep 27, 2012)

> ''if we do not write our own budgets we could end up like countries that "find their right to self-determination withdrawn by the markets, and new rules imposed by their creditors, without warning or clemency"
> 
> 
> from Cleggs Conference Speech...


 

Is Clegg saying that unless we agree with austerity we will end up managed by the Troika, what sort of choice is that?, so much for democracy


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2012)

chilango said:


> Why would you fear this?
> 
> The more deluded they are about the scale of their collapse the less they can do to limit it.
> 
> Unless, of course, you don't want to see a LibDem wipeout...hmm?


 
He wants to see the Lib-Dems scared enough that their centrists and left-centrists fall in with Labour.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2012)

I think he'd prefer a strong lib-dem vote in order to stop the tories winning around 10 seats across the south. He thinks there is a difference between the two. Really. He doesn't get that the voters don't anymore.


----------



## chilango (Sep 27, 2012)

I think he wants the Lib Dems to be a "centre-left" Party that he can "hegemonise" from his imaginary position to their left.


----------



## Kippa (Sep 27, 2012)

I personally think that Cleggs is suffering from a schism in his mind, a split from reality between the position he "thinks" he is in as opposed to the position that he is "actually" in.  We most likely going to get hammerd at the next election and to be fair we deserve it.  From my point of view I think the core membership is still strong from what I see at my end, to that point even if we loose a lot of MPs there will still be a core party.  As for me I looking to the long future, to the aftermath of the next general election.  Hopefully the 2nd generation Lib Dems won't royally fuck up.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2012)

You're already dead.


----------



## Kippa (Sep 27, 2012)

I would accept that the party would be dead if the core grass roots membership disintegrated to nothing,  I just don't see that happening locally.


----------



## butchersapron (Sep 27, 2012)

Kippa said:


> I would accept that the party would be dead if the core grass roots membership disintegrated to nothing, I just don't see that happening locally.


No, you people will mill around the doors until you're told where to go.


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 27, 2012)

If the history books tell us anything it will be a decline until there beaten back into their heartlands the South West ,highlands of scotland .And if their lucky in thirty years as before they crawl back to 2010 level


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 28, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> The Graun claims that this is cleggs masterplan
> 
> 
> 
> ...


They could always recycle this as their pre-election slogan.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 28, 2012)

Some micro-news from Surrey -

In two borough council by-elections in Runnymede yesterday, the Lib-dems successfully held off a challenge for 4th place from the monster raving loony party in the Chertsey Meads ward:

Tory : 450
Labour : 312
UKIP : 312
Lib Dems : 34
MRLP : 10

(Turnout 23 and a bit % -  )

sadly the MRLP did not field a candidate in New Haw :

Tory : 346
Labour : 148
UKIP : 124
Lib Dem : 54

(Turnout 14 and a bit % - )

(Lib dems were second in both seats in 2010, albeit in a field of 2 in New Haw ward)


----------



## Nylock (Sep 28, 2012)

Kippa said:


> As for me I looking to the long future, to the aftermath of the next general election. Hopefully the 2nd generation Lib Dems won't royally fuck up.


The way things are looking for the libdems currently, they won't get back to a similar position of power until you, me and most of the people who post here are long dead...


----------



## nino_savatte (Sep 28, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Some micro-news from Surrey -
> 
> In two borough council by-elections in Runnymede yesterday, the Lib-dems successfully held off a challenge for 4th place from the monster raving loony party in the Chertsey Meads ward:
> 
> ...


 
I bet the Tories say nothing about the low turnouts for those by-elections. Yet they moan like hell about low turnouts for union strike ballots. 14% is appalling.


----------



## King Biscuit Time (Sep 28, 2012)

Yup. The urban councillors will all be wiped out by the next GE. There will be no base to re-build from in the Northern Cities. That took years of carefully attracting and retaining disillusioned Labour voters. There is no activist base. No seductive whiff of power coming from the local party that might intoxicate any new members. The Party will be finished.

All that will be left is a handful of MPs representing patches of the SW, the Highlands and possibly SW London.


----------



## Nylock (Sep 28, 2012)

They should re-run the election. If a union got a majority on 14% of the vote they'd soon be bleating on about it being 'undemocratic' and 'not the will of the majority'


----------



## redsquirrel (Sep 28, 2012)

Kippa said:


> I personally think that Cleggs is suffering from a schism in his mind, a split from reality between the position he "thinks" he is in as opposed to the position that he is "actually" in. We most likely going to get hammerd at the next election and to be fair we deserve it. From my point of view I think the core membership is still strong from what I see at my end, to that point even if we loose a lot of MPs there will still be a core party. As for me I looking to the long future, to the aftermath of the next general election. Hopefully the 2nd generation Lib Dems won't royally fuck up.


And in the meantime you are willing to support the coalition attacking what remains of the welfare state. Fuck you.


----------



## treelover (Sep 28, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Some micro-news from Surrey -
> 
> In two borough council by-elections in Runnymede yesterday, the Lib-dems successfully held off a challenge for 4th place from the monster raving loony party in the Chertsey Meads ward:
> 
> ...


 
isn't Runnymede the home of the origins of democracy in England?

well sort of, magna carta, etc..


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 28, 2012)

treelover said:


> isn't Runnymede the home of the origins of democracy in England?
> 
> well sort of, magna carta, etc..


 
Where was magna carta signed?


----------



## co-op (Sep 28, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Where was magna carta signed?


 
At the bottom.

I thang you, I thang you


----------



## treelover (Sep 28, 2012)

> *Runnymede* is a water-meadow alongside the River Thames in the English county of Surrey, and just over 20 miles (32 km) west of central London. It is notable for its association with the sealing of Magna Carta, and as a consequence is the site of a collection of memorials. Runnymede Borough is named after the area.


 
Sorry, the 'sealing' of Magna Carta..


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 28, 2012)

redsquirrel said:


> And in the meantime you are willing to support the coalition attacking what remains of the welfare state. Fuck you.


 
What about the horse he rode in on?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 28, 2012)

Louis MacNeice said:


> Where was magna carta signed?


 
Was this before or after she died in vain?


----------



## Treacle Toes (Sep 28, 2012)

> *Nick Clegg tells critics: 'If you don't like me, vote Labour'*
> 
> ​


​ 


http://www.birminghampost.net/news/...you-don-t-like-me-vote-labour-65233-31908938/


----------



## shagnasty (Sep 29, 2012)

Rutita1 said:


> ​
> 
> http://www.birminghampost.net/news/...you-don-t-like-me-vote-labour-65233-31908938/


Particularlly like the comment, his one acheivement is to bring us back to a two party system


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 29, 2012)




----------



## shagnasty (Sep 29, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


>


you looking at me, i am well hard


----------



## chilango (Sep 29, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


>


----------



## articul8 (Sep 29, 2012)

He's nicked that look from his colleague:


----------



## claphamboy (Sep 29, 2012)

^^^ 

I couldn't remember Danny Alexander's surname & google image searched 'ginger rodent', and the first image returned.....


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Sep 29, 2012)

claphamboy said:


> I couldn't remember Danny Alexander's surname & google image searched 'ginger rodent',


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Sep 30, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Was this before or after she died in vain?


 
Get back to East Cheam.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 1, 2012)

More than one journalist last week mentioned the possibility that the Lib Dems won't do as badly as expected in the next GE (one of them was Patrick Wintour, well known Graun cheerleader for the Lib Dems, can't remember the other).

That kind of wittering is fantasy and self delusion on a par with the Lib Dems' own.

They're going to get crushed and steamrollered. Destroyed, they're on a suicide mission (successful!) and have been for ages.


----------



## chilango (Oct 1, 2012)

Thing is, even if (and this is a big fucking if) the hatred and loathing or he LibDems subsides some, even if (another big fucking if) people forgive/forget their promise breaking, they will still collapse. 

Why?

Because their time in Government has proved that there is absolutely no point in voting for them, no reason or logic in voting them. 

Their "share" of power, always the goal, has been shown to be so utterly pointless that their entire raison d'être, their strategy for living memory, is now a busted flush.


----------



## redsquirrel (Oct 1, 2012)

chilango said:


> Because their time in Government has proved that there is absolutely no point in voting for them, no reason or logic in voting them.
> 
> Their "share" of power, always the goal, has been shown to be so utterly pointless that their entire raison d'être, their strategy for living memory, is now a busted flush.


Particularly when there a whole load of parties that people can vote for if they don't want to vote for one of the big two.

Part of the appeal of the LibDems has always been that they were a third option, but now people looking for that third option have PC, SNP, Greens etc, parties that are doing as well/better than the LibDems,so why would they vote for the yellow scum.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2012)

It get's better - 1.5 million labour voters swirtched to the lib-dems between 1997 and 2010. That lot are pretty much all gone. That's 25% of their total vote wiped out in one go - and, this is key, these are going to predominantly be voters in marginal seats (other wise these voters would likely be among the 3 million labour votes lost in that period to abstention) and so have a disproportional effect on results. Added to that you have the always existing tactical anti-tory labour voters who never had any choice but to vote lib-dem in that 97-2010 period to get their favoured result (as well as the assorted other anti-tories) and these are also concentrated by definition in lib-dem marginals - the combined effect of this means that any close seat they are going to get hammered from a number of directions and lose. And this is the best bit - _every seat bar one is a close seat. _They are going to be reduced to a regional party for a handful of affluent areas and any vote they get outside of those areas will not mean a damn thing as they will be spread far too thin. The pluralists can spin it anyway they like but it's over.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 1, 2012)

And the labour voters were basically told to fuck off.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 1, 2012)

Toynbee - and others - keep going on that the 'eletrol arithamtic' says that labour will need to work with the lib dems next election - this seems to be based on the fact that a collapse in the lib dem vote will gift the tories seats in libdem/tory marginals. But I cant see how this matters - it will be more than offset by the lib dem vote going to labour in tory marginals.
Can anyone explain what the fuck they are going on about?
I see it as desperate flailiing around by the former SDP types - particulalrly in the guardian. Is there any truth in it?
By my rekoning if labour get anyhting close to 40% of the vote they are going to win an overal majority.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2012)

You've got it spot on - desperation on the part of the SDP types to keep their flame alive - helped by idiots here and elsewhere who can't see an opportunity when it stares them in the face.


----------



## Random (Oct 1, 2012)

Reminds me of the Trotskyist desire, when in a United Front, to prop up the other, more right-wing members of the front, in order to keep everything looking like a diverse alliance. Pluralism.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 1, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> *Toynbee - and others - keep going on that the 'eletrol arithamtic' says that labour will need to work with the lib dems next election - this seems to be based on the fact that a collapse in the lib dem vote will gift the tories seats in libdem/tory marginals. But I cant see how this matters - it will be more than offset by the lib dem vote going to labour in tory marginals.*
> Can anyone explain what the fuck they are going on about?
> I see it as desperate flailiing around by the former SDP types - particulalrly in the guardian. Is there any truth in it?
> By my rekoning if labour get anyhting close to 40% of the vote they are going to win an overal majority.


 
I read her 'thoughts'  on that last week and I had no idea what she was on about either. Basic psephology misunderstanding fail. And prediction fail too, on a grand scale. The Lib Dems are heading for electoral oblivion and I finding it hard-to-impossible to think of a scenario where they won't get obliterated or very close to that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> I read her 'thoughts' on that last week and I had no idea what she was on about either. Basic psephology misunderstanding fail. And prediction fail too, on a grand scale. The Lib Dems are heading for electoral oblivion and I finding it hard-to-impossible to think of a scenario where they won't get obliterated or very close to that.


It's easy to see what's motiviating her and the other desperate SDPers - they want a three party coalition based system (they try and sell this as much needed modernisation) and so need the lib-dems to exist. They never want there to ever be a situation where a more left-wing (in the traditional sense) labour party can ever challenge for power again (this part they try to sell as ensuring that the tories never get a majority again). Combine these and you get the idea that the lib-dems are basically still just external-labour (which they are as it goes, but not in the way they think they are). It's self serving madness when seen from the pro-labour perspective.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 1, 2012)

They're also setting themselves up for a big disappointment, even shock, if they stick to that thinking and ignore the mountain of Lib Dem destroying facts and figures that we're discussing here ....


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2012)

Oh they know it, they're just boosting - it's all they have left. Well that and the ear of a significant part of the labour leadership.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Oct 1, 2012)

'senior lib dems' are reported as insisting that any future coalition with labour will depend on Ed Balls being removed - and Vince cable as chancellor.

Fucking la la land or what?

If we end up with a hung parliament (pretty unlikely seeing as the lib dems will be lucky to have more than 10 mps) - the lib dems would gladly crawl naked over broken glass to get a seat - any seat - in the cabinet. Even a cabinet with Pol Pot as PM, Gazza as chancellor and where vince cable was offered the role of  minister for bog roll.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 1, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> 'senior lib dems' are reported as insisting that any future coalition with labour will depend on Ed Balls being removed - and Vince cable as chancellor.
> 
> Fucking la la land or what?


 
Exactly, arrogance beyond parody that story. As if they're going to be in any position at all to make 'demands' like that anyway.

The way things are heading, Labour won't even have to insist that a Lib Dem leader isn't Clegg to deal with them at all, not least down to Clegg cruising for a bruising in Sheffield. Probably Cable in Twickenham too


----------



## chilango (Oct 1, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> You've got it spot on - desperation on the part of the SDP types to keep their flame alive - helped by idiots here and elsewhere who can't see an opportunity when it stares them in the face.



They'd be better off joing the rump SDP that still exists and relaunching that.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 1, 2012)

chilango said:


> They'd be better off joing the rump SDP that still exists and relaunching that.


SDPers ikle Toynbee are still right at the centre of labour (i was talking about them not people still in the lib-dems).


----------



## cesare (Oct 1, 2012)

Whilst EM was being relatively polite about Cable yesterday, he said that he wasn't interested in contemplating a situation where the LP wouldn't win by a majority at the next GM.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2012)

William of Walworth said:


> More than one journalist last week mentioned the possibility that the Lib Dems won't do as badly as expected in the next GE (one of them was Patrick Wintour, well known Graun cheerleader for the Lib Dems, can't remember the other).
> 
> That kind of wittering is fantasy and self delusion on a par with the Lib Dems' own.


 
It's not wittering at all, Will.
It's a very deliberate attempt to shape the political discourse - the more people the likes of Wintour can convince or even sow doubt in, the more likely the possibility of his "fantasy" coming true. If he and his fellow-travellers repeat their narrative often enough to a broad enough audience, they *will* influence people, and bear in mind that we're not talking about influencing people to shift their voting habits, we're talking about them *retaining* their votership of the last General Election.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 1, 2012)

cesare said:


> Whilst EM was being relatively polite about Cable yesterday, he said that he wasn't interested in contemplating a situation where the LP wouldn't win by a majority at the next GM.


 
Although obviously they'll plan for it "just in case".


----------



## cesare (Oct 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> Although obviously they'll plan for it "just in case".


Oh yes, I imagine so.


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 1, 2012)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's not wittering at all, Will.
> It's a very deliberate attempt to shape the political discourse - the more people the likes of Wintour can convince or even sow doubt in, the more likely the possibility of his "fantasy" coming true. If he and his fellow-travellers repeat their narrative often enough to a broad enough audience, they *will* influence people, and bear in mind that we're not talking about influencing people to shift their voting habits, we're talking about them *retaining* their votership of the last General Election.


 
I agree, but I also just think that Wintour and the others are plain wrong, and that the electoral facts on the ground will crush their attempts.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 6, 2012)

Opinium tonight/tmw for Observer has Lib-dems 9 UKIP 11.

(Lab lead on 11, following another one on 14 earlier today)


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 7, 2012)

This from the Sunday Times   CON 31%, LAB 45%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 8%

i expect the tories to pull a bit back this week but to fall away in the future ,that is how the conference season goes


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 7, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> This from the Sunday Times CON 31%, LAB 45%, LDEM 8%, UKIP 8%
> 
> i expect the tories to pull a bit back this week but to fall away in the future ,that is how the conference season goes


You have to be a fucking inane individual to be a swing voter, don't you? "Well, I was going to vote Labour, but David Cameron gave a nice conference speech"


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> You have to be a fucking inane individual to be a swing voter, don't you? "Well, I was going to vote Labour, but David Cameron gave a nice conference speech"


They know that these people are shifty twats, which is why they try to micro-appeal to them then as priority #1.


----------



## Belushi (Oct 7, 2012)

Worcester Woman, Mondeo Man.. twats the lot of them.


----------



## Lo Siento. (Oct 7, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> They know that these people are shifty twats, which is why they try to micro-appeal to them then as priority #1.


The combination of paying enough attention to be affected by these things, whilst simultaneously being thick enough to have them change your opinion, is just mind-numbing to me.


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2012)

_We're coming for you._


----------



## butchersapron (Oct 7, 2012)

Lo Siento. said:


> The combination of paying enough attention to be affected by these things, whilst simultaneously being thick enough to have them change your opinion, is just mind-numbing to me.


It's the perfect melt of strategy and tactics. _It is genius._


----------



## shagnasty (Oct 14, 2012)

Cons make hardly any headway after conference

CON 33%, LAB 43%, LDEM 10%, UKIP 6%.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


----------



## William of Walworth (Oct 14, 2012)

Belushi said:


> Worcester Woman, Mondeo Man.. twats the lot of them.


 
Swingtwats.

Never liked em!


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

These are the seats that the lib-dems are going to lose to labour in 2015. On top of this nailed on 15 there are another 15 other seats where the anti-tory/labour tactical vote is 100% propping them up and the collapse in this vote will mean a tory victory. And 11 more where i think this is he situation but can't be sure. They currently have 57 MPs. So around 2/3 of their seats are under very serious threat.

NORWICH SOUTH
Conservative: 10902 (22.93%)
Labour: 13650 (28.71%)
Liberal Democrat: 13960 (29.36%)
BNP: 697 (1.47%)
UKIP: 1145 (2.41%)
Green: 7095 (14.92%)
Others: 102 (0.21%)
Majority: 310 (0.65%)

BRADFORD EAST
Conservative: 10860 (26.84%)
Labour: 13272 (32.81%)
Liberal Democrat: 13637 (33.71%)
BNP: 1854 (4.58%)
Independent: 612 (1.51%)
Others: 222 (0.55%)
Majority: 365 (0.9%)

BRENT CENTRAL
Conservative: 5068 (11.18%)
Labour: 18681 (41.22%)
Liberal Democrat: 20026 (44.18%)
Green: 668 (1.47%)
Christian: 488 (1.08%)
Independent: 163 (0.36%)
Others: 230 (0.51%)
Majority: 1345 (2.96%)

MANCHESTER WITHINGTON
Conservative: 5005 (11.11%)
Labour: 18216 (40.45%)
Liberal Democrat: 20110 (44.66%)
UKIP: 698 (1.55%)
Green: 798 (1.77%)
Independent: 204 (0.45%)
Majority: 1894 (4.21%)

BURNLEY
Conservative: 6950 (16.61%)
Labour: 13114 (31.34%)
Liberal Democrat: 14932 (35.68%)
BNP: 3747 (8.95%)
UKIP: 929 (2.22%)
Independent: 2173 (5.19%)
Majority: 1818 (4.34%)

EAST DUNBARTONSHIRE
Conservative: 7431 (15.5%)
Labour: 16367 (34.13%)
Liberal Democrat: 18551 (38.69%)
SNP: 5054 (10.54%)
UKIP: 545 (1.14%)
Majority: 2184 (4.56%)

BIRMINGHAM YARDLEY
Conservative: 7836 (19.18%)
Labour: 13160 (32.22%)
Liberal Democrat: 16162 (39.56%)
BNP: 2153 (5.27%)
UKIP: 1190 (2.91%)
Others: 349 (0.85%)
Majority: 3002 (7.34%)

EDINBURGH WEST
Conservative: 10767 (23.18%)
Labour: 12881 (27.73%)
Liberal Democrat: 16684 (35.92%)
SNP: 6115 (13.17%)
Majority: 3803 (8.19%)

ARGYLL AND BUTE
Conservative: 10861 (24.03%)
Labour: 10274 (22.73%)
Liberal Democrat: 14292 (31.61%)
SNP: 8563 (18.94%)
Green: 789 (1.75%)
Independent: 272 (0.6%)
Others: 156 (0.35%)
Majority: 3431 (7.58%)

REDCAR
Conservative: 5790 (13.8%)
Labour: 13741 (32.75%)
Liberal Democrat: 18955 (45.17%)
BNP: 1475 (3.52%)
UKIP: 1875 (4.47%)
TUSC: 127 (0.3%)
Majority: 5214 (12.42%)

HORNSEY AND WOOD GREEN
Conservative: 9174 (16.67%)
Labour: 18720 (34.01%)
Liberal Democrat: 25595 (46.5%)
Green: 1261 (2.29%)
Independent: 292 (0.53%)
Majority: 6875 (12.49%)

CARDIFF CENTRAL
Conservative: 7799 (21.57%)
Labour: 10400 (28.77%)
Liberal Democrat: 14976 (41.43%)
Plaid Cymru: 1246 (3.45%)
UKIP: 765 (2.12%)
Green: 575 (1.59%)
TUSC: 162 (0.45%)
Monster Raving Loony: 142 (0.39%)
Independent: 86 (0.24%)
Majority: 4576 (12.66%)

CAMBRIDGE 
Conservative: 12829 (25.59%)
Labour: 12174 (24.28%)
Liberal Democrat: 19621 (39.14%)
UKIP: 1195 (2.38%)
Green: 3804 (7.59%)
TUSC: 362 (0.72%)
Independent: 145 (0.29%)
Majority: 6792 (13.55%)

GORDON
Conservative: 9111 (18.68%)
Labour: 9811 (20.11%)
Liberal Democrat: 17575 (36.03%)
SNP: 10827 (22.2%)
BNP: 699 (1.43%)
Green: 752 (1.54%)
Majority: 6748 (13.83%)

BRISTOL WEST (Bristol's shame)
Conservative: 10169 (18.37%)
Labour: 15227 (27.51%)
Liberal Democrat: 26593 (48.05%)
UKIP: 655 (1.18%)
Green: 2090 (3.78%)
English Democrat: 270 (0.49%)
Independent: 343 (0.62%)
Majority: 11366 (20.54%)

LEEDS NORTH WEST
Conservative: 11550 (26.56%)
Labour: 9132 (21%)
Liberal Democrat: 20653 (47.5%)
BNP: 766 (1.76%)
UKIP: 600 (1.38%)
Green: 508 (1.17%)
English Democrat: 153 (0.35%)
Others: 121 (0.28%)
Majority: 9103 (20.94%)


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2012)

Given the dramatic collapses we've seen in some by-elections, and the wild card of UKIP, dare we dream of an even greater wipeout than you predict?

I'm talking proper death, less seats than the SNP type wipeout...

...or am I being greedy?


----------



## JTG (Nov 30, 2012)

Bristol West will definitely go... second biggest LD majority in the country isn't it? But extremely vulnerable, thousands of those LD voters were Labour in 1997 & 2001


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

Yep, Williams i think realises he's going to have to look for other employment and has decided to piss off every single voter in that seat (and across the city really) before he has to.


----------



## JTG (Nov 30, 2012)

As a former constituent, I loathe and detest that man

I may move back there just so I can vote him out


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2012)

chilango said:


> Given the dramatic collapses we've seen in some by-elections, and the wild card of UKIP, dare we dream of an even greater wipeout than you predict?
> 
> I'm talking proper death, less seats than the SNP type wipeout...
> 
> ...or am I being greedy?


my dad reckons the whole parliamentary party will be going to work in one taxi.


----------



## JTG (Nov 30, 2012)

killer b said:


> my dad reckons the whole parliamentary party will be going to work in one taxi.


They'll be going to work on a tandem


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 30, 2012)

JTG said:


> They'll be going to work on a tandem


 
Unicycle.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2012)

Maybe they can share a bedsit and save on rent too?


----------



## goldenecitrone (Nov 30, 2012)

killer b said:


> Maybe they can share a bedsit and save on rent too?


 
Flip their studio flats?


----------



## Kaka Tim (Nov 30, 2012)

Fun fact - There have been 12 bi-elections this parliament. The lib dems have lost their deposit in 6 of them.


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2012)

I want to see them back at pre SDP levels. About a dozen seats. Easily doable as in 1979 they got that with a higher share of the vote than they are polling now and they are no longer a tactical anti-Tory choice.


----------



## chilango (Nov 30, 2012)

chilango said:


> I want to see them back at pre SDP levels. About a dozen seats. Easily doable as in 1979 they got that with a higher share of the vote than they are polling now and they are no longer a tactical anti-Tory choice.



Single figures a la 1951 would be better, but could that actually happen?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

chilango said:


> Single figures a la 1951 would be better, but could that actually happen?


Yep.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

The numbers just don't add up for it not to be a massacre and the normal insurance that being a nationally known politician (of which they have what, 5 or 6?) is actually working against them in this case - the more exposure the more they are identified with the stuff that's leading to people not voting for them. It's only going to be people with a long record of local popularity (Like Simon Hghes who i think _may_ be safe) over many years who have a chance, and they just don't have that many people in that situation.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2012)

what are your thoughts on farron butch?


----------



## JTG (Nov 30, 2012)

killer b said:


> what are your thoughts on farron butch?


And what about Laws?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

killer b said:


> what are your thoughts on farron butch?


Tim nice but dim you mean? I think he's a typical lib-dem who will say one thing to one audience and then the opposite to the next. Remember his piece in the Guardian about a year ago saying that it's all going swimmingly whilst trying to whip up membership anger at how things were going? Shifty twister. Potential next leader and is positioning himself so via a slight rhetorical turn to the left, will be too late to save the party though as all the 20 years work in left-positioning to get the pissed off labour vote has gone down the drain, either back to labour or into abstention.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2012)

more interested in how safe you think he is...


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

Safe with a reduced maj. Prob about 4-6000 as tactical votes drop out and tories stay at home.


----------



## killer b (Nov 30, 2012)

guess a 12000 majority is going to be a struggle to overturn, and he has a rep for being a 'good constituency MP'. shame.


----------



## JTG (Nov 30, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Safe with a reduced maj. Prob about 4-6000 as tactical votes drop out and tories stay at home.


And Laws? I'm guessing similar?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

Yes very similar, plus the local trad that Ashdown built up before him. Laws is a very lucky thief indeed.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 30, 2012)

Liberal Democrats by-election result is 'worst ever by a major political party'

To be expected at this point says Cable, a good performance says Hughes. Really.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 7, 2012)

In passing (and indicative of an internal battle at the Guardian that this is now lead story  - see also) labour should be looking to crush them, put them off the map for ever, the possibility is there:

Labour turn against possible Lib Dem coalition



> Lord Adonis, the former Labour transport secretary and one of the party's leading pluralists, has said that he has changed his mind about the desirability of forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.
> 
> In an interview with the Guardian, he said he had become "a lot more negative" about the attractions of coalition government having witnessed the outcome of the pact between David Cameron and Nick Clegg.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 7, 2012)

Adonis is one of the leading members of Progress as well so what he says does represent the thinking of a good percentage of the Labour leadership.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 7, 2012)

Getting closer to E day 2015,the libdems will have to make a plan for an election tactics soon because time is running out


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 8, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> Adonis is one of the leading members of Progress as well so what he says does represent the thinking of a good percentage of the Labour leadership.


Leaves articul8s refusal to take a similar position looking a bit well...to the right of Lord Adonis


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Leaves articul8s refusal to take a similar position looking a bit well...to the right of Lord Adonis


 
So basically he's whistling the refrain from _die Horst Wessel lied_ to himself, then?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 8, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> In passing (and indicative of an internal battle at the Guardian that this is now lead story - see also) labour should be looking to crush them, put them off the map for ever, the possibility is there:
> 
> Labour turn against possible Lib Dem coalition


 
Funnily enough i was talking about this over the weekend. There's a faction in Labour that see's it as a point of principle to re-unite the SDP back in the family, one of the long-term aims of New Labour, but there's also a growing realisation that the next election is an opportunity to crush the Lib Dems forever, finally ending the split in the left-wing/progressive vote that so damaged Labour electorally from 1983 onwards. Even the right-wingers are realising this, but it's very hard for the likes of Toynbee, who've been pushing this Lib-Lab stuff for decades now, to swallow this pill.

Key your eye on Sarah Teather as a benchmark over all this, coz I've heard she's absolutely desperate to cross over to Labour, but Labour are resisting because they're worried that even if Teather ran as the Labour candidate she'd lose anyway. They're gonna win her seat (Brent, isn't it?) off her anyway, why would they want to jeopardise that?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 8, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> Funnily enough i was talking about this over the weekend. There's a faction in Labour that see's it as a point of principle to re-unite the SDP back in the family, one of the long-term aims of New Labour, but there's also a growing realisation that the next election is an opportunity to crush the Lib Dems forever, finally ending the split in the left-wing/progressive vote that so damaged Labour electorally from 1983 onwards. Even the right-wingers are realising this, but it's very hard for the likes of Toynbee, who've been pushing this Lib-Lab stuff for decades now, to swallow this pill.


 
The main point being the SDP is alive and well and in control of Labour so yep there's no need to do anything except smash the Liberals back down to their pre-Alliance days.



> Key your eye on Sarah Teather as a benchmark over all this, coz I've heard she's absolutely desperate to cross over to Labour, but Labour are resisting because they're worried that even if Teather ran as the Labour candidate she'd lose anyway. They're gonna win her seat (Brent, isn't it?) off her anyway, why would they want to jeopardise that?


 
I think she wants to cross over as well - and I think it's the sort of thing that Labour could potentially stupidly say yes to in exchange for a very short term burst of publicity however others on here say no and point out to her attacks on Brent's Labour council...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 8, 2012)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> The main point being the SDP is alive and well and in control of Labour so yep there's no need to do anything except smash the Liberals back down to their pre-Alliance days.


 
Exactly. I like Arthur Scargill's decription of Tony Blair as "an SDP entryist into the Labour party" coz that's what they are.

I also like Arthur Scargill's big desk and his commitment to pluralism.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 8, 2012)

I like Arthur's new clothing range.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/201...ll-clothing-line_n_2261820.html?utm_hp_ref=uk


----------



## hipipol (Dec 8, 2012)

As low as this perhaps????


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 10, 2012)

I know this is going to be an outlier, but the latest TNS-BMRB poll has _UKIP at double the lib-dems:_

CON 26% (-2)
LAB 41% (+1)
UKIP 16% (+4)
OTHER 9% (-1)
LD 8% (-2)


----------



## JTG (Dec 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I know this is going to be an outlier, but the latest TNS-BMRB poll has _UKIP at double the lib-dems:_
> 
> CON 26% (-2)
> LAB 41% (+1)
> ...


 
Good grief, that Tory figure is awful as well

As you say, outlier etc but UKIP  def seem to have been boosted by relative by election success and have possibly broken out of the home counties/middle class bracket they were in before.

Wait and see what other polls (and actual elections) have to say really...


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 10, 2012)

I still have a hard time imagining that UKIP poll will stay that high come the general election. Once the Tory "A Vote for UKIP is a vote for Miliband" campaign begins I suspect it'll come down a bit. But it's still staggering.

More on Sarah Teather defecting to Labour, very interesting article

http://southtottenhamreview.wordpre...ul-criteria-for-defections-from-the-lib-dems/

(Just on Shaun Woodward, I've been in his house. No, not this one...







This one, an abandoned one in St.Helens, in the street my grandmother lived on.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Dec 10, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I know this is going to be an outlier, but the latest TNS-BMRB poll has _UKIP at double the lib-dems:_
> 
> CON 26% (-2)
> LAB 41% (+1)
> ...


 


although the "refusing to say = tory" factor needs to be taken into account, as does the "saying UKIP = doesn't think the tories are being right wing enough, but will probably vote tory in a real election" factor


----------



## belboid (Dec 10, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> although the "refusing to say = tory" factor needs to be taken into account


more likely to = liberal these days


----------



## JTG (Dec 11, 2012)

Puddy_Tat said:


> although the "refusing to say = tory" factor needs to be taken into account, as does the "saying UKIP = doesn't think the tories are being right wing enough, but will probably vote tory in a real election" factor


There is that, and the UKIP share will be lower at a GE... but still far higher than it's been before and more likely to hurt the Tories than anyone else


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Dec 11, 2012)

I think the 2015 election is far from sown up for anyone but UKIP can only hurt the Tories, even if they draw off Labour votes which they are perfectly capable of doing it's the sort of Labour vote generally that would previously have considered the Tories a viable option, certainly under Thatcher.

I also think UKIP can draw more votes off the Libdems than people think - certainly in areas where the Liberals have built themselves up as the populist answer to "mainstream" politics.


----------



## Roadkill (Dec 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> I know this is going to be an outlier, but the latest TNS-BMRB poll has _UKIP at double the lib-dems:_
> 
> CON 26% (-2)
> LAB 41% (+1)
> ...


 
Bloody hell. 

Definitely an outlier, and it's extremely unlikely that UKIP would poll anything like that at a GE, whilst the Tories and Lib Dems would almost certainly do better, but even so it goes to show how royally fucked the LDs are.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2012)

CON + UKIP > LAB

I'm not sure how good a poll that is for Labour. Only polling 41% when the government is really unpopular mid-term isn't great.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2012)

It's not con+ukip, it's con-ukip, and 41% with the tories on low thirties is easily enough to win a majority - it's the size of the gap that counts.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Dec 11, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> CON + UKIP > LAB
> 
> I'm not sure how good a poll that is for Labour. Only polling 41% when the government is really unpopular mid-term isn't great.


 
LAB + LD > CON+UKIP.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2012)

Three years before the 92 election, the gap was 20 percentage points - lab around 50, con around 30. The 15 point gap here is large, but the rise of UKIP is a new factor, explaining why the tories have dropped below the 30 percent mark that in the past they have rarely fallen below. They're still bad figures for the tories, but I would suggest that, given the collapse of the libdem vote, 41 percent is not a good figure for labour either. It's one of those poll results that isn't particularly encouraging for any of the main parties.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2012)

The tories are bound to respond to UKIP's rise, too, aren't they? Some change in benefit entitlement for immigrants, something like that - all the better if it breaks some EU rule, so that they can show themselves to be standing up to Europe. I'd wager that UKIP's share of the vote in the next election will be less than 5 percent.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 11, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Three years before the 92 election, the gap was 20 percentage points - lab around 50, con around 30. The 15 point gap here is large, but the rise of UKIP is a new factor, explaining why the tories have dropped below the 30 percent mark that in the past they have rarely fallen below. They're still bad figures for the tories, but I would suggest that, given the collapse of the libdem vote, 41 percent is not a good figure for labour either. It's one of those poll results that isn't particularly encouraging for any of the main parties.


 
You cant compare it with previous elections . The lib dem collapse gifts labour with the lion share of the left of centre vote, whilst UKIP splits the tory vote (although UKIP will get nothing like 10% at a GE)

To go from the pitiful 29% they got in 2010, to solidly and constantly polling in the low 40s is pretty good for labour. The tories are fucked, because of the lib dem collapse they need to poll two percentage points more than they did in 2010 (historically unrpecedented for an uncumbnet) just to remain where they are, a majority will need to seem them poll over 40% at the next general election - 5% more than they got in 2010 - virtually impossible (who the fuck is going to vote tory next time who didn't in 2010?).

And forget the old arithmatic, the main parties aren't as popular as they were in the past. People hate both labour and tories - but they hate the tories about 10% more.

£10 to the server fund says labour majority at the next eleciton.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2012)

Some of the tories' core vote has switched to UKIP. I shudder to think about the kinds of things the tories will do to win them back. But I wouldn't bet against them doing so. 

So with the tories inevitably lurching to the eurosceptic right, where does that leave the libdems? Do the tories even have to pretend to be listening to the libdems now? Will Clegg make a stand at some point, figuring that he no longer has anything to lose? Or will he just lay low, taking his salary for the maximum three years before he's booted out at the next election? And what of the other libdems? Are there any who would break ranks? Hughes, perhaps?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2012)

Kaka Tim said:


> And forget the old arithmatic, the main parties aren't as popular as they were in the past. People hate both labour and tories - but they hate the tories about 10% more.
> .


I think you're right, that the core votes of both tories and labour have shrunk. The last election showed how low labour's core vote had dropped, and this poll shows how low the tories' has been eroded. I don't see that as any indication that labour are going to win the next election, though. It simply means that voting blocks have softer edges that can rub off on one another - hardly surprising really, given the absence of any ideological differences these days. And I would suggest that in the absence of ideological differences, personalities and presentation become more important. In that, I don't hold out great hopes for Ed Milliband. In purely electoral terms, I think they probably chose the wrong brother. Ed is charm-free and could prove a serious liability when the election comes around.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2012)

The last election showed that the labour core vote_ is rock solid,_ whilst the tories is on a secular trend downwards. I think your analysis is a bit mad and a bit stuck in the past.


----------



## magneze (Dec 11, 2012)

David Miliband may have 2% more charm than Ed, but has nothing to back it up with. No-one wants Blair II.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Dec 11, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you're right, that the core votes of both tories and labour have shrunk. The last election showed how low labour's core vote had dropped, and this poll shows how low the tories' has been eroded. I don't see that as any indication that labour are going to win the next election, though. It simply means that voting blocks have softer edges that can rub off on one another - hardly surprising really, given the absence of any ideological differences these days. And I would suggest that in the absence of ideological differences, personalities and presentation become more important. In that, I don't hold out great hopes for Ed Milliband. In purely electoral terms, I think they probably chose the wrong brother. Ed is charm-free and could prove a serious liability when the election comes around.


 
I think that if they'd have gone with Dave M they may have managed to attract a few tory voters to vote labour - but I think they would not have attracted as many of the former lib demmers (many of whom voted lib dem because they saw it as to the left of labour). Similarly I think under Dave M,  Labour's strategy would be more focused on the same old blairite shite of 'triangulating' - challenging the tories on their own terrority.

Whats unique about the next election is that to win, Labour dont have to win a single tory voter from 2010 over to labour - thanks to Nick Clegg. This means that their is strong electoral argument for  labour policy being a lot less rightwing than under Blair.  I think Ed has been less rightwing than his brother would have been over things like murdoch and the recent benefit attack - they are still being cowardly and mendacious, but they are being slightly less cuntish than they have been in the past. And I think in term of image 'serious nerdy nice guy ed' is  a decent counter to Disco Daves Smooth talking Eton Spiv.

The problems that the tories face are far more serious - they have not got anything close to 40% they need for a majority since 1992. When faced with the most open of open goals in 2010, with a favourable press and a credible leader - they still only managed 36%. Even after 15 years and Cameron's 'detoxification', they were still seen by too many people as 'the nasty party' - and the past two years will only have confirmed that image in the minds of the electorte. 
To win over the centre vote,  they have be seen as socially liberal and not bang on about immigration - but this outrages their own base support, so they face a challenge on the right from UKIP.  I agree that UKIP will probably only get 5% of the vote at the next GE, and most of that will go back to the tories, but that still robs the tories of at least 2% of their vote that they really really cant afford to lose.  Demographically they are in trouble as well, trailing in popularity amongst the young, women and minority groups.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you're right, that the core votes of both tories and labour have shrunk. The last election showed how low labour's core vote had dropped, and this poll shows how low the tories' has been eroded. I don't see that as any indication that labour are going to win the next election, though. It simply means that voting blocks have softer edges that can rub off on one another - hardly surprising really, given the absence of any ideological differences these days. And I would suggest that in the absence of ideological differences, personalities and presentation become more important. In that, I don't hold out great hopes for Ed Milliband. In purely electoral terms, I think they probably chose the wrong brother. Ed is charm-free and could prove a serious liability when the election comes around.


One other point on this - the tory vote is a 'voting bloc' - the labour vote is - still - a class bloc. That's the key difference. Second doesn't change, first is defined by its change and instability.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> One other point on this - the tory vote is a 'voting bloc' - the labour vote is - still - a class bloc. That's the key difference. Second doesn't change, first is defined by its change and instability.


You don't think there is a class element to tory voting? Seems to me that there is a very strong class element to it.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 11, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You don't think there is a class element to tory voting? Seems to me that there is a very strong class element to it.


Of course, but it can be expressed by voting other than tory - and the class demographic for the tory vote is being reduced year by year by age death and the proletarianisation of the middle class.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Dec 11, 2012)

butchersapron said:


> Of course, but it can be expressed by voting other than tory - and the class demographic for the tory vote is being reduced year by year by age death and the proletarianisation of the middle class.


Yes, that makes sense. Mind you, isn't this the very reason why the tories are repositioning themselves as a party of liberal social leaning combined with fiscal conservatism? The new tories are pretty much identical both in broad strokes and specific policies to the US Democrats. Looks to me like they are searching for a position that will attract those classes who, as you say, feel no sense of belonging to a tory block, but who would vote tory.

There are certainly pulls in a few different directions for the tories at the moment. But Boris Johnson won in London, a place with a high proportion of this kind of demographic. Balancing this with neutralising UKIP will be a delicate operation, I would think.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 16, 2012)

Could this be another outlier or a trend

CON 28%(-3), LAB 39%(-4), LDEM 9%(-1), UKIP 14%(+6)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 16, 2012)

Outlier. When it comes to a general election rather than a mid-term poll, Labour will do better.


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 16, 2012)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I think you're right, that the core votes of both tories and labour have shrunk. The last election showed how low labour's core vote had dropped, and this poll shows how low the tories' has been eroded. I don't see that as any indication that labour are going to win the next election, though. It simply means that voting blocks have softer edges that can rub off on one another - hardly surprising really, given the absence of any ideological differences these days. And I would suggest that in the absence of ideological differences, personalities and presentation become more important. In that, I don't hold out great hopes for Ed Milliband. In purely electoral terms, I think they probably chose the wrong brother. Ed is charm-free and could prove a serious liability when the election comes around.


 
I disagree, David would have resulted in a minority faction in the party taking power again and led to a civil war. Ed was the right choice for the party and will be PM. Possibly with a small majority too.


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 16, 2012)

Kid_Eternity said:


> I disagree, David would have resulted in a minority faction in the party taking power again and led to a civil war. Ed was the right choice for the party and will be PM. Possibly with a small majority too.


I have a lot more confidence in ed milliband than i did have


----------



## Kid_Eternity (Dec 16, 2012)

shagnasty said:


> I have a lot more confidence in ed milliband than i did have


 
I'm convinced he's going to win, Clegg has no chance of winning anything, the LibDems are screwed. The Tories faced a Labour party with terrible polls and Gordon Brown as leader and still couldn't win a majority. This time they're going to bleed votes to UKIP, while LibDems voters shift to Labour. That means a Labour victory.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Dec 20, 2012)

http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news-even...ity-but-labour-lead-remains-in-double-figures



> Voting intentions poll shows CON 30% (+4), LAB 40% (-1), LD 7% (-1), UKIP 12% (-4), OTHER 10% (+1)
> 
> Following last week’s large Labour lead, which stood at 15 points, there has been a return to the more common polling picture of recent months with Labour registering a lead of 10 points in this week’s poll.
> 
> ...


----------



## shagnasty (Dec 20, 2012)

Delroy Booth said:


> http://www.tns-bmrb.co.uk/news-even...ity-but-labour-lead-remains-in-double-figures


I see they have libdems at 7%


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 22, 2012)

i saw something on twitter today by a lib-dem saying people would rather vote for satan than for the lib-dems


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 22, 2012)

>>> Delroy's post. Still a 10% Lab lead over the Tories though. Keep calm and carry on etc.


----------



## Belushi (Dec 22, 2012)

frogwoman said:


> i saw something on twitter today by a lib-dem saying people would rather vote for satan than for the lib-dems


 
why vote for a lesser evil?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 12, 2013)

ComRes poll for the Sunday People had UKIP in 2nd, Tories 3rd and Lib Dems on 8%. 

http://comres.co.uk/polls/Sunday_People_European_Political_Poll_13th_January_2013.pdf

LAB 35%, UKIP 23%, CON 22%, LDEM 8%


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2013)

For euro-elections. They _finished _2nd last time around.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 12, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> For euro-elections. They _finished _2nd last time around.


 
Would still be a pretty big blow to the Tories if they finished behind UKIP in the euros mind.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2013)

Huge labour jump there  -that would be up 20% Taking votes off tories/lib-dems/others.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Would still be a pretty big blow to the Tories if they finished behind UKIP in the euros mind.


It would set off a nasty does of the mickey fabs again for sure.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 12, 2013)

It would be bad news for Andrew Brons & Nick Griffin's chances of re-election I reckon. With UKIP hoovering up the far-right vote and Labour doing well they're both in trouble.


----------



## binka (Jan 12, 2013)

brons isn't bnp anymore he started the british democratic party end of last year with other ex-bnp also i think i read he isn't going to stand for election again anyway but could be wrong on that


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 12, 2013)

I think ANY opinion poll about the Euro elections at this stage is unrealistic, given that they're not due until 2014. Little more than notional.


----------



## Quartz (Jan 12, 2013)

Belushi said:


> why vote for a lesser evil?


 
Satan? Cthulhu for the win!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 12, 2013)

binka said:


> brons isn't bnp anymore he started the british democratic party end of last year with other ex-bnp_ also i think i read he isn't going to stand for election again_ anyway but could be wrong on that


 
Where did you read that? Would be interestedto see it.


----------



## binka (Jan 12, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> Where did you read that? Would be interestedto see it.


unfortunately im not really good on details but im sure someone on here who actually knows what they're talking about will be able to help


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 12, 2013)

I was looking at old weekly worker archives today (yer i know) and i found an article that said that a lib-dem candidate back in 2001 in Hackney was describing herself as a marxist-leninist


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 12, 2013)

binka said:


> someone on here who actually knows what they're talking about


 
Yeah, suuure


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2013)

I suspec that was the woman who was a tory candidate , then lib-dem, _then respect_, then labour then tory again in a few short years. Can't recall her name.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 12, 2013)

Observer has lib dems on 7% and ukip on 12% tomorrow.


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> I suspec that was the woman who was a tory candidate , then lib-dem, _then respect_, then labour then tory again in a few short years. Can't recall her name.


 
Yeah I'll try and find the article for you, I was looking through loads of them though and can't remember what she was called!


----------



## killer b (Jan 13, 2013)

elaine abott?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 13, 2013)

No it was that rich banker loon woman


----------



## Santino (Jan 13, 2013)

Spanky Longhorn said:


> No it was that rich banker loon woman


One of the Buckinghamshire Banker-Loons?


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 13, 2013)

thats the one


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2013)

the weekly worker was going on about it she stood in hackney in 2001. I'll try to find the article later but I looked through loads of articles yesterday and can't remember what it was called.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Jan 13, 2013)

frogwoman said:


> I was looking at old weekly worker archives today (yer i know) and i found an article that said that a lib-dem candidate back in 2001 in Hackney was describing herself as a marxist-leninist


 
Please say you've got the link saved in your history or something - I could have some right fun with that!


----------



## frogwoman (Jan 13, 2013)

I do but I was looking at loads of them


----------



## ymu (Jan 14, 2013)

Guess this fits here. Response to Farron's preposterous article:



> It's quite safe to write off the Lib Dems
> 
> Never fear writing off the Liberals. They should be written off. They're Lib Dead, Lib Dumped, Lib Demolished, and Lib Derelict. The next election is shaping up to be a Liberal Democide, a Liberal Defenestration, a Liberal Democrash. And it will be Liberal Delicious.


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jan 14, 2013)

They are heading for Liberal Damnation.


----------



## JTG (Jan 14, 2013)

ymu said:


> Guess this fits here. Response to Farron's preposterous article:


From that article: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...iberal-Democrat-membership-plunges-by-25.html


----------



## Roadkill (Jan 14, 2013)

ymu said:


> Guess this fits here. Response to Farron's preposterous article:


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

UKIP above lib-dems in two polls today.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> UKIP above lib-dems in two polls today.


 
Just stuck the Angus Reid poll - CON 27%(-1), LAB 42%(nc), LDEM 10%(nc), UKIP 11%(nc) - into the provisional swingometer because it had a unusually low Tory result and it came up with Labour winning with a majority of 130.

27% is really low for the Tories, when's the last time they were that low? Under Hague or IDS's leadership? Major perhaps?


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Handful of 27%s in 2002, but that was among mostly mid-30s. 25-29% was pretty regular after 2001 election.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

I know this probably isn't the right thread for it, there was one about who's gonna win the next general election, but fuck it might as well put this here.

I've been thinking about this for the last few days, there's a pretty consistent long-term Labour lead in the polls now - according to most of the polls I'm seeing Labour could well win the next election by a huge landslide, with somewhere between 110-130 majority. And this isn't some one off it's been like this for a while.

Now I know a lot of people are going to be recalling the 1992 election, where Kinnock lost even though at some points prior to the election campaign Labour had huge leads in the polls, and are expecting the Tories to rise in the polls and win when it gets closer to the election, but really can that actually happen? Polly Toynbee has this out in the Guardian today, discussing Tim Montgomerie's recent appearance at the Fabian conference:



> So it was no surprise that this year's 1,000-strong Fabian conference devoted a session to frightening itself. To send shivers down spines, they brought in Tim Montgomerie, master-manipulator of his party from his powerful ConservativeHome site. He brought these reasons why Labour should tremble.
> 
> Start with facing an economy on the up by the next election. The Tory press, now tormenting David Cameron, will swivel its guns on Labour with an election in view: tin hats, take to the shelters, Ed Miliband ain't seen nothing yet. A referendum pledge will call Ukip voters back to Cameron. A new more leftish Lib Dem leader will summon voters now defecting to Labour. Once Labour lays out its economic policy, disappointed leftwingers will peel off to the SNP, Greens or nowhere. Tories will thunder on immigration and scroungers, appealing to Labour's core vote. Lynton Crosby will launch a 1992-style "Labour's Tax Bombshell" campaign so the squeezed middle clutches its wallet for fear of something worse. Be afraid!


 
Now what Tim Montgomerie says is partially true, and it's interesting how he's mentioned there being a new Lib Dem leader (is that something the Tories are expecting to happen?) and I could see the polls narrowing as a result of all this, but even if everything Montgomerie says comes to pass I still really can't see it being enough to overturn such a substantial Labour lead. Even if the economy is wonderful by 2015 (which it won't be) and even if the press push as hard as they can to back the Tories I can't see it being enough. The press absolutely hammered Gordon Brown but it still wasn't enough to get the Tories a majority. A really nasty, brutal, racist and divisive campaign might actually backfire on the Tories, I think the image of them as being vindictive and cruel is one that is very damaging to them and probably isn't as much of an assett electorally as they'd like to make out.

In summary - The Tories are facing a big defeat, and as each day passes the edge of the cliff gets closer. The remaining questions are how big is the defeat going to be, or what miraculous event (Falklands Round 2?) could possibly get them out of this situation.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 15, 2013)

Toynbee (SDP Sovereignty movement) is basically continuing her - and the fabians and compass and so on - campaign to stop people being so _beastly _to the lib-dems, after all _we _may need them in 2015.

btw,this thread basically turned into a who will win the next election thread.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 15, 2013)

butchersapron said:


> (SDP Sovereignty movement)


 
 you can have some likes for that


----------



## Lo Siento. (Jan 15, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> The press absolutely hammered Gordon Brown but it still wasn't enough to get the Tories a majority.


Yep. It's difficult to see why the Tories should expect to do better than the 36% they got in the last election - which with the Lib Dems collapse would see a Labour majority.


----------



## Santino (Jan 16, 2013)

At 8% in an IPSOS-MORI poll, a twenty-two year low by that particular method.

http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...e/3113/Ipsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-2013.aspx


----------



## brogdale (Jan 16, 2013)

Santino said:


> At 8% in an IPSOS-MORI poll, a twenty-two year low by that particular method.
> 
> http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchp...e/3113/Ipsos-MORI-Political-Monitor-2013.aspx


 
Noteworthy also that UKIP has pipped the LDs for the first time in a MORI poll.
As we've discussed before, MORI's telephone polling methodology tends to depress UKIP support below that realised through online polling, so UKIP will see this as a significant result.

Tory HQ will be alarmed.


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 21, 2013)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/21/labour-tories-five-points-poll

This Guardian/ICM poll has Labour leading the Tories by only 5 points, and the Lib Dems on 15. I think their methodology has been discussed on here before, but ICM re-distribute 50% of the "don't knows" in their sample to whoever they voted for at the last election, which gives the Lib Dems a bump that most other polls don't have. I think it's flawed because based on by-elections and other results the Lib Dems won't get anything near 50% of those floating voters who voted for them at the last election, especially considered a lot of those people would've been students attracted to the Lib Dems pledge to abolish tuition fees.

Also worth noting is that the Guardian is still trying to push this Lib-Lab pact stuff, and any poll which makes it look close between the Tories and Labour, and makes the Lib Dem looks like potential kingmakers in a hung parliament, is right down their street.


----------



## ymu (Jan 21, 2013)

ICM were second most accurate pollsters in 2010, but as Delroy says, they're over-allocating Lib Dem don't knows (no way will they get 50%. 30% maybe) and under-allocating those don't knows to Labour (who will get some of the tactical voting don't knows, most of the rest have already switched). The Tories will also get some of them in seats where LD voters were voting to keep Labour out.

They adjusted their methods to account for 'shy Tories' after the 1992 polling debacle, but the method is unlijely to work as well for 'confused and angry Lib Dems'. I think YouGov are probably the safest bet when there's a paradigm shift in the offing. I'm still blown away by them calling 2008 for Boris Johnson when the other pollsters had it for Livingstone. They got the differential 'donut' turnout spot on, which is what swung it for Johnson.


----------



## ymu (Jan 21, 2013)

I think it's worth noting that _all_ the polls may be over-stating the LD vote. The LD vote will melt away in all seats, both to Tories and Labour, but many more will defect in marginals, where the tactical vote is high, and many more will defect in Tory marginals, of which there are twice as many as Labour marginals (where defecting to the Tories is as pointless as voting LD). A lot of these tactical voters will be amongst the 'don't knows' as they are the type to want to know what the options are before deciding. My guess is thrice as many switching to Labour as Tory, and 10-30% sticking with Lib Dem (depending on how large the 'shy Lib Dem' effect is amongst true believers).

The polls are based on national samples, so these constituency effects are hard to capture. YouGov are smart enough to balance their samples, but they don't do contituency by constituency polling very often. Even if the % estimates hold out, it may not translate into as many seats as would be expected under uniform swing.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/21/labour-tories-five-points-poll
> 
> This Guardian/ICM poll has Labour leading the Tories by only 5 points, and the Lib Dems on 15. I think their methodology has been discussed on here before, but ICM re-distribute 50% of the "don't knows" in their sample to whoever they voted for at the last election, which gives the Lib Dems a bump that most other polls don't have. I think it's flawed because based on by-elections and other results the Lib Dems won't get anything near 50% of those floating voters who voted for them at the last election, especially considered a lot of those people would've been students attracted to the Lib Dems pledge to abolish tuition fees.
> 
> Also worth noting is that the Guardian is still trying to push this Lib-Lab pact stuff, and any poll which makes it look close between the Tories and Labour, and makes the Lib Dem looks like potential kingmakers in a hung parliament, is right down their street.


 
That last bit ties in with a theory, quite probably *proven* reality too but I've not done the reearch,  that newspapers -- Graun and all the others -- have total and active editorial control over which polls they pick, and their preferred methodology, than gets nearly enough publicity.

Then : Dangerously close to being a conspiracy theory this  , but but which of the several, and varying,  poll results that they commission actually get published?


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 21, 2013)

I wouldn't call that a conspiracy theory. The ICM people know what the Guardian, their paymasters, want to see in a poll. They know how to produce a methodology that can give them what they want to see (in this case Lib Dem's being the kingmakers) and they know that if they can't, or won't, do it, there's plenty others who will.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2013)

Yeah I've edited my post, and I think you're right. Would be interesting to know how widespread selective publishing of favoured poll results is.  Both in the Guardian and throughout all mainstream media.


----------



## ymu (Jan 21, 2013)

The pollsters have absolutely no incentive to get it wrong. Not the way to build a reputation, and ICM puts more effort than most into adjusting their methods to improve their relationship to reality. It is just very difficult right now, with standard polling methods, to know whose method is going to prove most accurate.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2013)

Oh, I wasn't suggesting the individual polls aren't accurate, there's always natural variation. Just wondering about how many of them get commissioned and how of the results get published.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I wouldn't call that a conspiracy theory. The ICM people know what the Guardian, their paymasters, want to see in a poll. They know how to produce a methodology that can give them what they want to see (in this case Lib Dem's being the kingmakers) and they know that if they can't, or won't, do it, there's plenty others who will.


I think you're wrong here - this is a methodology outcome. The papers can't just chop and change their regular pollsters without losing credibility. And ICM have produced various different leads and troughs at different times for the guardian - what does that suggest?


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2013)

Surely newspapers at times keep certain of the results, from some polls, unpublished?

Appreciate I'm speculating a tad.


----------



## ymu (Jan 21, 2013)

Calling Jazzz.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 21, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> Surely newspapers at times keep certain of the results, from some polls, unpublished?
> 
> Appreciate I'm speculating a tad.


They probably do for some minor issue but they don't not publish the results of a election voting poll for one of the big three parties!


----------



## Delroy Booth (Jan 21, 2013)

No I accept that and I certainly don't think ICM are deliberately skewing their polls, like you said it would ruin their credebility if nothing else. I was kind of making a point about how there doesn't need to be some nefarious conspiracy theory to explain why one polling company, funded by one newspaper, might produce different results to another polling company. Sample bias, publication bias, an unspoken but implicitly understood tacit arrangement to provide numbers that suit a particular agenda, those things are a feature of pretty much all polling and market research and political polls aren't any different. Polls aren't just about reflecting public opinion, but shaping it too, remember.


----------



## ymu (Jan 21, 2013)

It's more in the prominence given to a particular poll, the language used to describe the results, and whether or not comment pieces are commissioned off the back of it.

It's political parties that commission polls to lead opinion. But it's a bad mistake for them to believe their own propaganda. Hence the genuine Republican shock in November when every independent pollster had Obama as a virtual lock.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2013)

ymu said:


> Calling Jazzz.


 
No need for that, you know perfectly well that I'm an anti-conspiracist and scarcely any kind of Jazzz-type. I was merely raising a question --- that no answer was fine. And I think Delroy's posting sense as well.


----------



## Spanky Longhorn (Jan 21, 2013)

William of Walworth said:


> No need for that, you know perfectly well that I'm an anti-conspiracist and scarcely any kind of Jazzz-type. I was merely raising a question --- that no answer was fine. And I think Delroy's posting sense as well.


 
It was the needless Guardian bashing implied in your post that bothered me - stop trying to see the worst of the only half decent paper in the UK.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 21, 2013)

Cheeky!


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 22, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/jan/21/labour-tories-five-points-poll
> 
> This Guardian/ICM poll has Labour leading the Tories by only 5 points, and the Lib Dems on 15.


Here is the raw unadjusted numbers.
http://www.icmresearch.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2013/01/2013-jan-guardian-poll.pdf
Con:175 Lab:253 Whig:70 UKIP:29 (out of 1001)
2010
Con:225 Lab:224 Whig:122


----------



## mk12 (Jan 22, 2013)

I am amazed the LDs are still polling as high as they are. I don't personally know _anyone_ who will vote LD at the next election.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 22, 2013)

mk12 said:


> I am amazed the LDs are still polling as high as they are. I don't personally know _anyone_ who will vote LD at the next election.


 
Yep, but don't overlook the ICM methodology's propensity to 'over-cook' the LD number. Their apportionment of 'Don't Knows' based upon recollection of voting behaviour in last GE will obviously tend to mask, to an extent, a party in real electoral decline. Thus ICM has the LD 'core' at around 15%:-





Whereas YouGov's methodology, which ignores the DKs, produces a flat-lining 'core' much closer to 10%...which seems to me a much more realistic reflection of their current level of support:-




I suppose that the 'real' level of LD support that they'll get, once folk get in the ballot box, will be somewhere between the two figures, but there's still some way to go yet.


----------



## co-op (Jan 22, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> No I accept that and I certainly don't think ICM are deliberately skewing their polls, like you said it would ruin their credebility if nothing else. I was kind of making a point about how there doesn't need to be some nefarious conspiracy theory to explain why one polling company, funded by one newspaper, might produce different results to another polling company. Sample bias, publication bias, an unspoken but implicitly understood tacit arrangement to provide numbers that suit a particular agenda, those things are a feature of pretty much all polling and market research and political polls aren't any different. Polls aren't just about reflecting public opinion, but shaping it too, remember.


 
I'd call most of what you're talking about here methodological stuff - which they won't mess around with as it would lead to a credibility issue. The best way of massaging the outcome is to play with the question - there are ways to elicit positive and negative answers that will direction-nudge middle-ground respondents without strong opinions.

Then of course the newspaper can splash the results or shove them on page 9 and all of that.


----------



## William of Walworth (Jan 22, 2013)

co-op said:


> I'd call most of what you're talking about here methodological stuff - which they won't mess around with as it would lead to a credibility issue. The best way of massaging the outcome is to play with the question - there are ways to elicit positive and negative answers that will direction-nudge middle-ground respondents without strong opinions.
> 
> Then of course the newspaper can splash the results or shove them on page 9 and all of that.


 
I agree with what Delroy's saying on this, and broadly with what you are as well co-op.  I think the 'playing with the question' thing is often pretty important in polls generally, but surely there's only so far you can go with straight party support polls?


----------



## ferrelhadley (Jan 22, 2013)

co-op said:


> I'd call most of what you're talking about here methodological stuff - which they won't mess around with as it would lead to a credibility issue.


Was the reassigning of dont knows to who they voted for last time not introduced to try to tease out the 'shy tories'? People who did not show up on polls but showed up on election day.

Also I think the "Liberal" rather than ex-SDP part of the party is relatively happy with the coalition. They have a solid base, just a geographically constrained one (SW and Highlands and Islands)


----------



## JTG (Jan 23, 2013)

I wouldn't count on that 'SW base' delivering much outside of Yeovil next time


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2013)

ferrelhadley said:


> Was the reassigning of dont knows to who they voted for last time not introduced to try to tease out the 'shy tories'? People who did not show up on polls but showed up on election day.
> 
> Also I think the "Liberal" rather than ex-SDP part of the party is relatively happy with the coalition. They have a solid base, just a geographically constrained one (SW and Highlands and Islands)


 
Yes, AFAIK ICM's methodology is designed to 'compensate' for that body of tory support too ashamed to admit it.

I don't know enough about support in the SW 'heartlands', but I think the Old Lib/exSDP distinction is a little simplistic. Even within the (old) Libs there was/is the factional split between the predominantly economic liberal (now known as 'Orange bookers') and the Social liberals; I suppose those divisions go all the way back to the 19thC Classical/Modern splits.

In other matters...it will be very interesting to see what, if any, impact Cameron's speech will have on polling, especially the 'kipper's numbers.


----------



## butchersapron (Jan 23, 2013)

Bit more on ICM



> Meanwhile the full tables for yesterday’s ICM poll are now up on their website here. As usual the re-allocation of don’t knows reduced Labour’s lead, in this case from eight points to five points – so despite the apparent contradiction, ICM and YouGov are actually recording a very similar Labour lead, eight points and nine points. The difference in their topline reported figure is because the two companies make different assumptions about what don’t knows will do (YouGov ignore them, ICM assume a proportion will go back to their previous parties).


----------



## ymu (Jan 23, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Yep, but don't overlook the ICM methodology's propensity to 'over-cook' the LD number. Their apportionment of 'Don't Knows' based upon recollection of voting behaviour in last GE will obviously tend to mask, to an extent, a party in real electoral decline. Thus ICM has the LD 'core' at around 15%:-
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It won't necessarily be an average of the two. It could conceivably be lower than both. It depends how the don't knows split, and how many of them vote. The reason ICM suggests that the don't knows might boost the Lib Dem vote so much is that there aren't many people who voted Labour in 2010 who aren't sure if they're going to vote Labour again but there are an awful lot of people who voted Lib Dem in 2010 who are having second thoughts now.

For simplicity, assume that we have 50% decided and 50% don't knows and everyone will vote. For the 50% who are decided, the LDs get no more than 10% - all the pollsters agree on that. Their total vote will be the average of that and their vote amongst the don't knows. If they get less than 10% of the 50% who are don't knows, then they will get less than 10% of the total votes cast.

So it depends on why people are don't knows, and how many of them turn out.


----------



## Pickman's model (Jan 23, 2013)

ymu nice to see you turn your hand to psephology.


----------



## brogdale (Jan 23, 2013)

ymu said:


> It won't necessarily be an average of the two. It could conceivably be lower than both. It depends how the don't knows split, and how many of them vote. The reason ICM suggests that the don't knows might boost the Lib Dem vote so much is that there aren't many people who voted Labour in 2010 who aren't sure if they're going to vote Labour again but there are an awful lot of people who voted Lib Dem in 2010 who are having second thoughts now.
> 
> For simplicity, assume that we have 50% decided and 50% don't knows and everyone will vote. For the 50% who are decided, the LDs get no more than 10% - all the pollsters agree on that. Their total vote will be the average of that and their vote amongst the don't knows. If they get less than 10% of the 50% who are don't knows, then they will get less than 10% of the total votes cast.
> 
> So it depends on why people are don't knows, and how many of them turn out.


 
Sound psephological analysis.
My punt at 12.5% for the LDs was nothing more than a hunch. If I had to put money on it and all that!


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2013)

Delroy Booth said:


> I wouldn't call that a conspiracy theory. The ICM people know what the Guardian, their paymasters, want to see in a poll. They know how to produce a methodology that can give them what they want to see (in this case Lib Dem's being the kingmakers) and they know that if they can't, or won't, do it, there's plenty others who will.


 


butchersapron said:


> I think you're wrong here - this is a methodology outcome. The papers can't just chop and change their regular pollsters without losing credibility. And ICM have produced various different leads and troughs at different times for the guardian - what does that suggest?


 
Just to return to this briefly - the Guardian have been using ICM since 1984.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 4, 2013)

Huhne pleads guilty to PTCoJ


----------



## DaveCinzano (Feb 4, 2013)

binka said:


> brons isn't bnp anymore he started the british democratic party end of last year with other ex-bnp also i think i read he isn't going to stand for election again anyway but could be wrong on that


 
I notice that accessing the BDP via Nationalist Unity Forum offers up 'The Growing Issue of Garbage Disposal' as the lead article


----------



## where to (Feb 25, 2013)

Comres have them at record low of 8%. Probably more huhne that rennard though.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2013)

where to said:


> Comres have them at record low of 8%. Probably more huhne that rennard though.


Nice, leaves them space for next one.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 25, 2013)

where to said:


> Comres have them at record low of 8%. Probably more huhne that rennard though.


 
Hmmm



> The poll was conducted between Friday and Sunday, so after the allegations about Lord Rennard and at least partially after the downgrade of Britain’s credit rating.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 25, 2013)

brogdale said:


> Hmmm


But not after cleggs sunday night shame. Next one.


----------



## butchersapron (Jul 13, 2013)

Is this our first 6%?

Opinium for Observer:
CON 27%(nc)
LAB 38%(+1)
LD 6%(-1)
UKIP 19%(nc)


----------



## shagnasty (Jul 15, 2013)

It seems that labour have a low vote but enough to win an election.That must be one for einstien theory of relativity


----------



## belboid (Aug 2, 2013)

Marvellous result for the LibScum in the Welsh Parliament by-election.

1.43% and beaten by the Socialist Labour Party!


----------



## Santino (Aug 2, 2013)

shagnasty said:


> It seems that labour have a low vote but enough to win an election.That must be one for einstien theory of relativity


Latest Populus and YouGov polls have Labour at 40.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Jun 12, 2014)

Lib dems have been telling themselves that thye wouldn't stay on 10% forever and things would change when they got closer to the general election. 

turns out they were right. 

They've just recorded their lowest ever poll rating with you gov - 6%. 
Details here - 
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 12, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Lib dems have been telling themselves that thye wouldn't stay on 10% forever and things would change when they got closer to the general election.
> 
> turns out they were right.
> 
> ...


 
Closing in on their record low of 3% in 1989.



> the lowest the Lib Dems have recorded in _any_ GB poll is, so far as I can tell, a 3% in an ICM poll for the Sunday Correspondent in 1989


----------



## treelover (Jun 12, 2014)

> Danny Alexander has said that the Lib Dems could be biggest party by 2025.
> 
> http://www.newstatesman.com/politic...lexander-lib-dems-could-be-biggest-party-2025





Nurse!


----------



## goldenecitrone (Jun 12, 2014)

treelover said:


> Nurse!



Not as big a party as the one in 2015 when the twats get booted out of government next spring I bet.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Sep 10, 2014)

Latest you gov - 

Lab 38
Con 32
UKIP 14
*LDem 6 *
Green 5

A new low?


----------



## DaveCinzano (Sep 10, 2014)

Kaka Tim said:


> Latest you gov -
> 
> *LDem 6 *


I'm welling up


----------



## belboid (Nov 19, 2014)

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9069

Down to 5%


----------



## weepiper (Nov 20, 2014)

From the  Rochester and Strood count


----------



## brogdale (Nov 20, 2014)

...or coming under charlotte rose?


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 20, 2014)

The Messenger spoke to 100 voters leaving polling booths during the day. Here's what they found.

Ukip – 49%

Conservative – 29%

Labour – 16%

Greens – 6%

Liberal Democrats – 0%


----------



## taffboy gwyrdd (Nov 21, 2014)

At least 0 is a nice round number.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

We seem to have worked out that they need around 400+ votes to avoid 0%. In South Shields they got 352. Larger turnout today though.


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> We seem to have worked out that they need around 400+ votes to avoid 0%. In South Shields they got 352. Larger turnout today though.


I assume that >200 would be rounded up to 1%.
To get <200 would be pretty spectacular.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

brogdale said:


> I assume that >200 would be rounded up to 1%.
> To get <200 would be pretty spectacular.


You've killed the dream - i forgot about rounding.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

It's ok, we just say, _non-rounded results _and give exact figures.


----------



## Wilf (Nov 21, 2014)

taffboy gwyrdd said:


> At least 0 is a nice round number.


It may have been rounded up.


----------



## butchersapron (Nov 21, 2014)

Wilf said:


> It may have been rounded up.


I hate to use a tories joke but on a 100 sample the MOE is +/-5%. So they could be on -5%


----------



## Wilf (Nov 21, 2014)

It's only -5% because some of their votes blew away


----------



## chilango (Nov 21, 2014)

0.87%.

Excellent.

The dream is Clegg losing his seat in May.

Can we dare to dream?


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2014)

chilango said:


> 0.87%.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> ...



I'd say that's very achievable. I'm been daring to dream of that GE 2015  Portillo moment for ages


----------



## Roadkill (Nov 21, 2014)

See here for an interesting take on Sheffield Hallam.  Could go either way, although tbh if I were a betting man I'd put a fiver on Clegg hanging on by the skin of his teeth.


----------



## William of Walworth (Nov 21, 2014)

Roadkill : That's from August, but I hadn't picked upon it before so thanks -- its an interesting read. Sounds like the main lesson Labour need to draw from it is that they need to start encouraging students to get registered within Clegg's consituency from NOW. No idea how organised or sussed the LP is in Sheffield though


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

> Lib Dem president *Tim Farron* has now broken cover to admit it had been a bad night. He’s told the World at One:
> 
> I spent quite a bit of time on the doorsteps of Rochester. *I probably met all of the Liberal Democrat voters.*



Lol


----------



## redsquirrel (Nov 21, 2014)

Roadkill said:


> See here for an interesting take on Sheffield Hallam.  Could go either way, although tbh if I were a betting man I'd put a fiver on Clegg hanging on by the skin of his teeth.


Yeah, I think you're right unfortunately but we can but hope.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Nov 21, 2014)

weepiper said:


> From the  Rochester and Strood count




 at the MRLP failing to make the big breakthrough


----------



## brogdale (Nov 21, 2014)

Newsnight fact....R&S = LDs 11th lost deposit of the parliament.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 19, 2014)

Is this the first 5%?

*Mike Smithson*
@MSmithsonPB
New TNS BMRB poll has  LAB 35% (+4), CON 28% (-2), Ukip 19% (N/C), GRN 7% (+1), LD 5% (-1).

edit: no, one other from opinium in november.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 23, 2014)

Despite a rather odd 14% from one of the pollsters (ICM) this has been the worst months polling for the lib-dems in this entire parliament. (av 7.6%). And this is is exactly when their differentiation plan was supposed to start reaping rewards.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 23, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Despite a rather odd 14% from one of the pollsters (ICM) this has been the worst months polling for the lib-dems in this entire parliament. (av 7.6%). And this is is exactly when their differentiation plan was supposed to start reaping rewards.



Oh dear.
How sad.
Never mind!


----------



## Trendy Lefty (Dec 23, 2014)

I think the Lib Dems will get annihilated in the next election. I wonder how many of their 56 seats in the House of Commons will be left come May.

They need to rebuild away from the Tories and probably with a new leader!


----------



## killer b (Dec 23, 2014)

They need to fuck off.


----------



## JTG (Dec 23, 2014)

killer b said:


> They need to fuck off.


and die


----------



## Pickman's model (Dec 23, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I think the Lib Dems will get annihilated in the next election. I wonder how many of their 56 seats in the House of Commons will be left come May.
> 
> They need to rebuild away from the Tories and probably with a new leader!


the seats will still be there.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 24, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I think the Lib Dems will get annihilated in the next election. *I wonder how many of their 56 seats in the House of Commons will be left come May.*



Fewer than half of that figure. 

I mean less than 28 -- smaller than that figure in terms of the number of digits, _halved_


----------



## brogdale (Dec 24, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> Fewer than half of that figure.
> 
> I mean less than 28 -- smaller than that figure in terms of the number of digits, _halved_



FWIW, the 'wisdom' of gambling crowds...at least those betting on this with Ladbrokes...suggest 29 or 30 seats for the LDs in May. I have a gut feeling that the final tally may end up just slightly higher; if I were a betting man, I think I'd go for the 20-1 punt of 32.

http://politicalbookie.com/2014/12/18/how-many-seats-will-the-lib-dems-win/


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 24, 2014)

brogdale

OK, I feel confident that you (and your link) know what they're talking about.

My post above was probably a tad overoptimistic


----------



## brogdale (Dec 24, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> brogdale
> 
> OK, I feel confident that you (and your link) know what they're talking about.
> 
> My post above was probably a tad overoptimistic



I hope your confidence is not misplaced....the Mount Gay XO is not as full as it was.


----------



## The Boy (Dec 24, 2014)

brogdale said:


> FWIW, the 'wisdom' of gambling crowds...at least those betting on this with Ladbrokes...suggest 29 or 30 seats for the LDs in May. I have a gut feeling that the final tally may end up just slightly higher; if I were a betting man, I think I'd go for the 20-1 punt of 32.
> 
> http://politicalbookie.com/2014/12/18/how-many-seats-will-the-lib-dems-win/



Betfair exchange only offering 1.26 on <32.5 seats fwiw.  Less than 2.0 on <25.5 seats.


----------



## Dogsauce (Dec 25, 2014)

Weird that the prediction of Iain Dale (who that blog links to) is that Leeds North West is a definite Lib Dem hold (one of only 8 'dead certs'). It's a bit of a three-way marginal, in the 20 years I've been living up here it's been tory and labour, LD for the last two parliaments. Massive student constituency, can't see them being very forgiving. He's the typical sort of LD prick that is always in the local papers pointing at stuff and frowning (which counts as 'campaigning on local issues' even if the newspaper pointing is all they seem to do for these campaigns). Seem to remember him voting a bit dodgily on abortion, suggesting he might be a closet God botherer too, but he didn't have the balls to explain himself. Fingers crossed Dale is wrong.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 25, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Weird that the prediction of Iain Dale (who that blog links to) is that Leeds North West is a definite Lib Dem hold (one of only 8 'dead certs'). It's a bit of a three-way marginal, in the 20 years I've been living up here it's been tory and labour, LD for the last two parliaments. Massive student constituency, can't see them being very forgiving. He's the typical sort of LD prick that is always in the local papers pointing at stuff and frowning (which counts as 'campaigning on local issues' even if the newspaper pointing is all they seem to do for these campaigns). Seem to remember him voting a bit dodgily on abortion, suggesting he might be a closet God botherer too, but he didn't have the balls to explain himself. Fingers crossed Dale is wrong.


I made similar points up thread on that.

in my reading of it there is around 30k anti-tory voters, vs 10-15k tory or potential tory voters, with 10k or so fairly solid labour or lib dem, and the other 10k swing voters for whichever party looks most likely to keep the tories out.

If labour got their act together I reckon they could beat Greg Mullholland (lib dem) here, or even a little imlausibly, but if the greens have ended up with a lot of new members and ran a shit hot campaign.... they'd have to come from nowhere, but there's a hell of a lot of that lib dem vote up for grabs here IMO, and the greens are polling at 20-25% for students and the youth vote nationally, up about 10% in the last year, so with a massive student vote in the area anything could happen.

Alternatively it could all end up splitting the anti tory vote and letting the tories back in for the first time in 18 years.


----------



## William of Walworth (Dec 25, 2014)

I have a horrid confession to make. APART from his LibDemishness   , I actually like Greg Mulholland -- his CAMRA supporting, pub protecting, ale-favouring credentials are seriously impeccable -- as a CAMRA activist (mostly _practical_ activism, mind  )  I do know a  fair bit about this.

There's some Labour and even Tory MPs who are pretty good on that specific subject, but ale-wise, Mulholland's up there with the best in politics. ONLY ale-wise, obvs. 

Glad I don't live and vote in Leeds NW (any more -- I voted there in 1987, when it was still Tory  )
If I was, I'd be confronted by my one and only Lib Dem related conundrum.

I'd still vote Labour there no doubt, just as I did 27 years ago , but ....


----------



## co-op (Dec 25, 2014)

Dogsauce said:


> Fingers crossed Dale is wrong.



He was making Bermondsey a Dead Cert Lib Dem hold back in March and that's just rubbish but I see that he's amended it to a 'Probable'. I still know a couple of people in the Bermondsey Labour Party and after the 2014 local elections they are all sure they are going to win it, all the wards in the constituency voted and the Labour Party got more votes and councillors than the Lib-Dems for the first time since before *that* by-election in 1982 or whenever it was. Hughes has given up, he'll be in the Lords inside 12 months.


----------



## free spirit (Dec 25, 2014)

William of Walworth said:


> I have a horrid confession to make. APART from his LibDemishness   , I actually like Greg Mulholland -- his CAMRA supporting, pub protecting, ale-favouring credentials are seriously impeccable -- as a CAMRA activist (mostly _practical_ activism, mind  )  I do know a  fair bit about this.
> 
> There's some Labour and even Tory MPs who are pretty good on that specific subject, but ale-wise, Mulholland's up there with the best in politics. ONLY ale-wise, obvs.
> 
> ...


careful now....

Ay, he's an alright bloke, and there's a couple of things he's done that were alright, but he's not rebelled anything like enough to get him a pass unfortunately.


----------



## Nylock (Dec 26, 2014)

Practically none of them have tbf


----------



## free spirit (Dec 26, 2014)

Nylock said:


> Practically none of them have tbf


have any of them?


----------



## Nylock (Dec 26, 2014)

Hedging (with the use of 'practically') there  

In my book, none of them have....


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2014)

Trendy Lefty said:


> I think the Lib Dems will get annihilated in the next election. I wonder how many of their 56 seats in the House of Commons will be left come May.



In my estimation, they won't lose more than 20 at maximum, probably quite a few less, although Clegg's constituency is looking vulnerable. Annihilation isn't likely, but neither is any successful form of party regeneration in the short term.



> They need to rebuild away from the Tories and probably with a new leader!



A "new" leader would inevitably either be drawn from the ranks of the Orange Bookers, or be an unknown around whom it'd take the party time to rally. Farron has been touted, as has Hughes and several others (including Cable), but they're all thoroughly tainted by their slavish support for Tory policies during the coalition, and with the violation of their manifesto pledge on tuition fees.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Dec 26, 2014)

JTG said:


> and die



The parliamentary L-D party won't die, though. They'll form a rump that will prostitute itself to whichever larger party promises it a few crumbs from the table, all the while telling themselves that they're politically-relevant, and persuading a few benighted constituencies to retain them as MPs.


----------



## butchersapron (Dec 31, 2014)

Summary of lib-dem performances in parliamentary by-elections this this parliament:


----------



## brogdale (Dec 31, 2014)

butchersapron said:


> Summary of lib-dem performances in parliamentary by-elections this this parliament:


11 of which resulted in a lost deposit.


----------



## frogwoman (Dec 31, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I made similar points up thread on that.
> 
> in my reading of it there is around 30k anti-tory voters, vs 10-15k tory or potential tory voters, with 10k or so fairly solid labour or lib dem, and the other 10k swing voters for whichever party looks most likely to keep the tories out.
> 
> ...



The tories are back in


----------



## joevsimp (Dec 31, 2014)

free spirit said:


> I made similar points up thread on that.
> 
> in my reading of it there is around 30k anti-tory voters, vs 10-15k tory or potential tory voters, with 10k or so fairly solid labour or lib dem, and the other 10k swing voters for whichever party looks most likely to keep the tories out.
> 
> ...



unlike a lot of towns and cities, the green vote in Leeds is split fairly evenly across the parliamentary seats, and the main stronghold is in the West constituency, the LibDems managed to get  29% across the four wards in NW and stayed ahead of Labour (who still have to jump from third bear in mind), so Mulholland may hang on


----------



## belboid (Feb 1, 2015)

another 5% in the Observer.  Way to wither and die


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2015)

joevsimp said:


> unlike a lot of towns and cities, the green vote in Leeds is split fairly evenly across the parliamentary seats, and the main stronghold is in the West constituency, the LibDems managed to get  29% across the four wards in NW and stayed ahead of Labour (who still have to jump from third bear in mind), so Mulholland may hang on


maybe, but this is a constituency with a high student population, (though a lot less so than in previous elections due to several thousand new student beds in the city centre / university area and lower student numbers). The latest polling has lib dems on 3.7% among students, down from nearly 50% around the last election. (and greens up to 20%).













The change in the student vote by itself could easily halve the lib dem majority here.

That said, I'm not seeing any evidence of any increased activity from labour, but maybe it's too early for that yet.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 1, 2015)

Two quick things - a  later poll showed further green rise and lab drop:






and that the above and this are _national _polls, not polls in Clegg's seat or any other single constituency.

Secondly that student vote only effects a handful of seats - in most they are too small and the majorities too big to make a difference. The report says circa 10.


----------



## free spirit (Feb 1, 2015)

That conversation was in regard to the Leeds NW constituency (rather than Clegg's), which has a very high level of students, though probably quite a lot less now than at it's height in 2006 or so. Most of the university halls are in the constituency for both universities, and beckets park campus, as well as historically a huge amount of private rented student conversions in the headingley, hyde park, burley, far headingley areas (28.6% students according to the report you linked to, with a 21% lib dem lead over the tories / 26.5% over labour at the last election, much closer between lab and lib dem at previous election, and labour winning twice before that)

The first poll I gave was a recent (last couple of weeks) web based poll of 1000 students voting intentions, one key difference being that it includes the don't knows at 25% whereas that one you posted excludes don't knows / is of all who are likely to vote. The one I posted may not be that accurate if it's based on a survey of forum members or similar, it was just the most recent I came across. 

Then again, given the rise of the greens in recent weeks it's not that improbable that their student vote would have risen further to closer to labour, but if so that'd look like it's mostly come from the labour votes


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2015)

have we not had the poll from Sheffield Hallam?  Clegg to lose to Labour by 10%, and could even come third behind the tories.

I dont really beleive it, but it'd be nice - http://survation.com/poll-in-nick-cleggs-sheffield-hallam-constituency-survationunite/


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2015)

belboid said:


> have we not had the poll from Sheffield Hallam?  Clegg to lose to Labour by 10%, and could even come third behind the tories.
> 
> I dont really beleive it, but it'd be nice - http://survation.com/poll-in-nick-cleggs-sheffield-hallam-constituency-survationunite/


I posted it in the polling thread..didn't think about this one.

Don't believe it? You sound like Clegg!
I'd imagine that Survation will be dis-chuffed with Clegg's comment that they've produced a biased poll for their union client.


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2015)

it's miles out from any other poll, and has the tories madly high too.  It's wrong. It's still bloody funny tho


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2015)

What other recent polls are there of cleggs constituency?


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> I have a horrid confession to make. APART from his LibDemishness   , I actually like Greg Mulholland -- his CAMRA supporting, pub protecting, ale-favouring credentials are seriously impeccable -- as a CAMRA activist (mostly _practical_ activism, mind  )  I do know a  fair bit about this.
> 
> There's some Labour and even Tory MPs who are pretty good on that specific subject, but ale-wise, Mulholland's up there with the best in politics. ONLY ale-wise, obvs.
> 
> ...


You'd actually consider voting for someone just because he likes beer?

Nigel Farage is calling...


----------



## belboid (Feb 5, 2015)

killer b said:


> What other recent polls are there of cleggs constituency?


there were the actual elections (lib/lab neck and neck) as well as the national polls which dont reflect anything like the result shown.  Ashcroft did one as well which had Clegg winning by a small percentage.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2015)

belboid said:


> it's miles out from any other poll, and has the tories madly high too.  It's wrong. It's still bloody funny tho


Constituency polls don't always follow national polling  though - these figures are pretty much the same as the Oakeshott poll found in the seat last year - that had lab/lib-dem 33/22 -this one has 33/23. The Ashcroft did a poll at the end of last year which was 31/28 to Lib-dems - and they all had the tories around 20%. So that's all three suggesting Clegg is in trouble.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Clegg is _loathed_.  I wouldn't be surprised to see a swing away from him personally that is bigger than the swing away from the Lib Dems generally.  He is 2015's Portillo.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 5, 2015)

I wouldn't directly map local election results onto the constituency seat, it's often affected by the profile of local candidates, and furthermore the people who vote in Euros/council elections are likely to be a different demographic to those in a national one.

The 'green surge' of the last few months might also be inflicting damage on the lib dem vote compared to earlier assessments, though it's suggested that's hitting Labour so who knows.

It'd be a good Portillo moment, though I'd be happier if it was someone like Hunt or Shapps getting humiliated because they're more of the smug self-regarding cunt types than Clegg (don't think either is a possibility).


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2015)

Some sensible commentary on the poll - in brief, could be right, could be wrong - daft to dismiss it though as we just don't know. Just as daft to take it as hard fact.


----------



## Kaka Tim (Feb 5, 2015)

danny alexander ang clegg both losing their seats would be pretty delicious. How late would we have to stay up to see cleggs puffy faced, teary eyed, losers speech at the shefield hallam count?


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2015)

Kaka Tim said:


> danny alexander ang clegg both losing their seats would be pretty delicious. How late would we have to stay up to see cleggs puffy faced, teary eyed, losers speech at the shefield hallam count?


They're passing a new law to speed up counts for the next election.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Some sensible commentary on the poll - in brief, could be right, could be wrong - daft to dismiss it though as we just don't know. Just as daft to take it as hard fact.


Very interesting.  Especially how the raw numbers were so similar.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 5, 2015)

To all you doubters and knockers...look how high they were today...







They were in Shanglri-La


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

William of Walworth said:
			
		

> I have a horrid confession to make. APART from his LibDemishness  , I actually like Greg Mulholland -- his CAMRA supporting, pub protecting, ale-favouring credentials are seriously impeccable -- as a CAMRA activist (mostly _practical_ activism, mind  ) I do know a fair bit about this.
> 
> There's some Labour and even Tory MPs who are pretty good on that specific subject, but ale-wise, Mulholland's up there with the best in politics. ONLY ale-wise, obvs.
> 
> ...





kabbes said:


> You'd actually consider voting for someone just because he likes beer?
> 
> *Nigel Farage is calling...*



No he isn't. He drinks Greene King IPA 

*In public photo-ops 
*
Please forgive the following image :






Shared by the excellent Attila the Stockbroker  who has fairly recently written/ranted  a poem about Farage and his rubbish 'beer' choice -- can't find that one right now, but you'd appreciate the anti-GK point (as well as the much more anti-UKIP one  )

Most of my CAMRA compadres also hate Farage's attempts to ride on the back of the proper beer cause. Uselessly, given his rubbish beer selections ... and given his preparedness to stand in front of patriotically UK-manufactured Carlsberg banners   ... but still!

And, please note my last sentence in the post you quoted ....


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

You'd consider it though.  Because he likes the beer you like.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes 

Bait -------------->
<---------------------Me


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

Not trying to get at you at all; I just find it a very odd statement is all.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

Just remember that's it's perfectly consistent to love ale and hate Farage at the same time ....  

Is all


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

Plus, not too inconsistent to appreciate (very reluctantly) that one particular Lib Scum MP's record on a* specific* subject is acceptable, even praiseworthy ,  while also feeling sick (to the point of choking on it  ) about any idea of _actually voting_ for him or them

I moved away from Leeds nearly 28 years ago to avoid that ethical 'dilemma'


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2015)

I think it's just the idea that beer might sway you in any way at all in your voting intentions is a bit mad, really. Which is what you seemed to be saying about Mulholland.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

His record on beer (also pubs) is pretty damned good. His identity as a Lib Dem is shit.

Sane (ish) reaction as a long-term CAMRA activist -- but one who would never vote LD or Tory. Including not for Mulholland, as I posted originally --  but perhaps not clearly enough ....


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2015)

you said you'd be faced with a conundrum if you had the option of voting for him.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

It just seems like a bizarre thing to even mention.  Like saying he is nice to his Mum, or that he gives a lot to the local animal charity.  It has nothing to do with his politics.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

killer b said:


> you said you'd be faced with a conundrum if you had the option of voting for him.



And gave an answer to that. Further clarified subsequently.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> It just seems like a bizarre thing to even mention.



Not for a CAMRA activist.

And I'd have to look back, but I think I was prompted by a previous post.


----------



## kabbes (Feb 5, 2015)

William of Walworth said:


> Not for a CAMRA activist.


That really is taking single issue politics to a whole new level!


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2015)

I was a CAMRA activist for almost 20 years. It's a bizarre thing to mention, apart from perhaps for the most idiot tickers.


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

kabbes said:


> That really is taking single issue politics to a whole new level!




Luckily in these just-about  post-Victorian times, good beer, even free beer, could never actually buy my vote


----------



## William of Walworth (Feb 5, 2015)

killer b said:


> I was a CAMRA activist for almost 20 years. It's a bizarre thing to mention, apart from perhaps for the most idiot tickers.



My earlier post was an accurate summary of Mulholland's record on that one issue.

Shall we leave it at that for now? I've clarified several times that my theoretical 'dilemma'/'conundrum' was no more than notional.

As for idiot tickers, I dismiss them. They can be the bane of our lives at our festival.


----------



## newbie (Feb 5, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They're passing a new law to speed up counts for the next election.


really?  Which they? I can't see anything on the Electoral Commission website or in their guidance for ROs.

Of course, you may not be being serious and I may have just fallen for it


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 5, 2015)

A bill is being pushed through to allow the counting to start earlier than before. I'll find a link in the morning,  but it's a real thing. I think that a few steps that had to take place before the counts proceeded will no longer have to.


----------



## newbie (Feb 5, 2015)

oh, not heard anything about that at all.

I like the all night drama the way it is tbh.  

thanks


----------



## killer b (Feb 5, 2015)

it's a bit dull between polls closing and Sunderland declaring as it is, I've no objection to the results starting earlier - I can't imagine they'll be able to speed it up that much, mind. You'll still get your allnighter.


----------



## BigTom (Feb 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> A bill is being pushed through to allow the counting to start earlier than before. I'll find a link in the morning,  but it's a real thing. I think that a few steps that had to take place before the counts proceeded will no longer have to.


Is this going to be the sum total of the lib dem's ambitious constitutional reform program?


----------



## JTG (Feb 6, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Is this going to be the sum total of the lib dem's ambitious constitutional reform program?


What do we want?
Gradual change!
When do we want it?
In due course!


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 6, 2015)

Do we have any LDs left on the board, moon has vanished, Kippa hasn't posted Dec 2013, are there any other?


----------



## JTG (Feb 6, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Do we have any LDs left on the board, moon has vanished, Kippa hasn't posted Dec 2013, are there any other?


Is trev still around?


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 6, 2015)




----------



## killer b (Feb 6, 2015)

Trev's jumped ship to the Greens. Turncoat scum.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2015)

newbie said:


> oh, not heard anything about that at all.
> 
> I like the all night drama the way it is tbh.
> 
> thanks


It's intended to enable constituency counts to go ahead once verified without waiting for local election verification first.


----------



## newbie (Feb 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It's intended to enable constituency counts to go ahead once verified without waiting for local election verification first.


fair enough.  I suppose I don't feel the nights entertainment will be particularly threatened by that.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> It's intended to enable constituency counts to go ahead once verified without waiting for local election verification first.


Some degree of irony there; a LD 'commentator' writing about the time it will take to count votes.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Some degree of irony there; a LD 'commentator' writing about the time it will take to count votes.


I reckon most of them will be aware the spell has worn off well before midnight.


----------



## JTG (Feb 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I reckon most of them will be aware the spell has worn off well before midnight.


Unavoidable really when you've turned back into a pumpkin


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Constituency polls don't always follow national polling  though - these figures are pretty much the same as the Oakeshott poll found in the seat last year - that had lab/lib-dem 33/22 -this one has 33/23. The Ashcroft did a poll at the end of last year which was 31/28 to Lib-dems - and they all had the tories around 20%. So that's all three suggesting Clegg is in trouble.


yeah, but the Oakeshott poll reverted to the expected result once previous voting etc had been taken into account - this poll has no such adjustments.  I'd like to believe it, but it's wrong.  There is no way the Libs will fall that low, sadly.  Don't forget that ten years ago this constituency was supposedly the wealthiest in Britain!  The liberal voters are largely wet tories, they want conservatism with a nice face - exactly what Clegg gives them. 

Labour could, amazingly, win the seat, but not by 10%.  My prediction is that it will be 35-33 either way, with the tories on 20, UKIP 7/8, Greens 2/3 and everyone else on 1.


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 6, 2015)

ICM reallocated 50% of the DKs to 2010 voting - which is always going to favour an incumbent, esp one with such a large previous lead - but it can also be a deadly mask when a vote is in the process of collapsing.


----------



## belboid (Feb 6, 2015)

I'll still put a tenner on it being completely wrong


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 7, 2015)

_Earlier this week it came to light that a poll I published last November in Sheffield Hallam included a mistake in the data. Concerned that this may not have been an isolated incident, I reviewed two other polls I commissioned from the same company at the same time. As I feared, the mistakes had been repeated.

The data has now been corrected, and the upshot is that in Sheffield Hallam, rather than having a three-point lead Nick Clegg should have been three points behind Labour:

LAB 30%, LDEM 27%, CON 19%, UKIP 13%, GRN 10%.

In Thanet South, rather than a five-point Conservative lead, the poll should have shown a very tight race with UKIP’s Nigel Farage:

CON 33%, UKIP 32%, LAB 26%, LIB DEM 4%, GRN 3%

And in Doncaster North Ed Miliband is a full thirty points clear of his nearest challenger:



LAB 55%, UKIP 25%, CON 13%, LIB DEM 4%, GRN 2%.

The results have been updated on the Constituency Polls section of my website, and the corrected data tables for Hallam, Thanet and Doncaster are also on my site.

...

So I must disclose that these three surveys last November are the first and only I have commissioned from a well-known but relatively new polling firm. And no, I won’t be using them again._


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 12, 2015)

Ha Ha


> The latest Ipsos Mori political monitor, released Thursday, has the Liberal Democrats on 6%. The party’s lowest score in 25 years. As context, in 1990, West Germany won the World Cup, and Roxette’s “_It Must Have Been Love”_ topped the charts.
> 
> What makes the figures even more extraordinary is that the Lib Dems are now tied with the SNP, which of course only runs in Scotland.


----------



## the button (Feb 12, 2015)

I'll certainly be staying up on election night to see Nick Clegg cry. Should still be in bed by midnight.


----------



## gosub (Feb 12, 2015)

the button said:


> I'll certainly be staying up on election night to see Nick Clegg cry. Should still be in bed by midnight.


I'm sure Lord Clegg will get over it fairly quickly


----------



## butchersapron (Feb 12, 2015)

Nope


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Feb 12, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Nope



Hopefully he'll get kicked to death outside of his polling station.


----------



## redsquirrel (Feb 12, 2015)

I wonder what's the lowest number of seats we could realistically hope for them to have after May is. Maybe 30?. They've 43 English Seats, so if they lose all their Welsh seats and all the Scottish bar Orkney and Shetland (which doesn't look that unlikely) they're already down to 44.


----------



## belboid (Feb 12, 2015)

gosub said:


> I'm sure Lord Clegg will get over it fairly quickly


That's Specijal European Comissioner Clegg to you! 

(he'll be hived off to a euro job, imo)


----------



## belboid (Feb 12, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> I wonder what's the lowest number of seats we could realistically hope for them to have after May is. Maybe 30?. They've 43 English Seats, so if they lose all their Welsh seats and all the Scottish bar Orkney and Shetland (which doesn't look that unlikely) they're already down to 44.


Low to mid 20s is plausible, tho I suspect they'll be pushing thirty in reality.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> That's Specijal European Comissioner Clegg to you!
> 
> (he'll be hived off to a euro job, imo)



...then cut loose when Britain votes to leave the EU twelve months later 

(No, I don't think that's a likely outcome, but the opportunity to sack Clegg twice could happen)


----------



## gosub (Feb 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> That's Specijal European Comissioner Clegg to you!
> 
> (he'll be hived off to a euro job, imo)


They only have one MEP,and Lord Hill (current UK EU Commissioner won't have been a year in the job)


----------



## the button (Feb 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> That's Specijal European Comissioner Clegg to you!



The same career path as his former boss Leon Brittan. Lovely.


----------



## Dogsauce (Feb 13, 2015)

I hope he ends up with the ultimate indignity and has to do TV ads to make ends meet.  I can very easily see him as the new face of DFS or making unconvincing contrived hand gestures whilst plugging the local carpet warehouse.  He has that style.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I hope he ends up with the ultimate indignity and has to do TV ads to make ends meet.  I can very easily see him as the new face of DFS or making unconvincing contrived hand gestures whilst plugging the local carpet warehouse.  He has that style.


Loan companies would seem more his thing, tbh.


----------



## belboid (Feb 13, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Loan companies would seem more his thing, tbh.


'Do you need to borrow £9,000 for your student fees?'


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> 'Do you need to borrow £9,000 for your student fees?'


£27k (at least) for the fees...and then the rest...


----------



## gosub (Feb 13, 2015)

Dogsauce said:


> I hope he ends up with the ultimate indignity and has to do TV ads to make ends meet.  I can very easily see him as the new face of DFS or making unconvincing contrived hand gestures whilst plugging the local carpet warehouse.  He has that style.



I imagine most marketing meetings have a bit where they go "we need face people know and trust, someone they can relate to....", Mr Clegg would be about 7 billionth on that list, just above Mr Putin


----------



## 8115 (Feb 13, 2015)

belboid said:


> 'Do you need to borrow £9,000 for your student fees?'


"Been bankrupted by a Lib Dem coalition?  Not your fault?"


----------



## gosub (Feb 13, 2015)

8115 said:


> "Been bankrupted by a Lib Dem coalition?  Not your fault?"



Coincidently, he told Alex Brooker that it wasn't his fault that he made promises he couldn't keep.


In reality, reckon he'll write a couple of political 'thrillers' whilst claiming £300 a day to sit on the red benches, plus lobbying fees


----------



## 8115 (Feb 13, 2015)

gosub said:


> Coincidently, he told Alex Brooker that it wasn't his fault that he made promises he couldn't keep.
> 
> 
> In reality, reckon he'll write a couple of political 'thrillers' whilst claiming £300 a day to sit on the red benches, plus lobbying fees


Yeah, it's not the lib dems fault they're in a coalition with the Conservatives, propping them up and voting through a load of damaging legislation.  Not at all.

Oh but wait, the pupil premium!  It was all worth it.


----------



## brogdale (Feb 13, 2015)

8115 said:


> Yeah, it's not the lib dems fault they're in a coalition with the Conservatives, propping them up and voting through a load of damaging legislation.  Not at all.
> 
> Oh but wait, the pupil premium!  It was all worth it.



In her C4 News interview, last week, Jackie Long listened to all that shite from the lying fucker..and then from about 2.55 cracked and told him that he was being like ".*.a man who has an affair, and then tells his wife 'look what I'm doing for you now; I'm putting the bins out..."*

http://bcove.me/18m6h07i

Should have kicked the fucker out of the window behind him.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Feb 14, 2015)

gosub said:


> I imagine most marketing meetings have a bit where they go "we need face people know and trust, someone they can relate to....", Mr Clegg would be about 7 billionth on that list, just above Mr Putin



And just below Freddie Krueger.


----------



## not-bono-ever (Feb 22, 2015)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-31575460

"A Liberal Democrat candidate has apologised for taking a selfie in front of a crematorium furnace and posting it to a dating app."

useless fuckin wanker


----------



## frogwoman (Feb 22, 2015)

not-bono-ever said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-31575460
> 
> "A Liberal Democrat candidate has apologised for taking a selfie in front of a crematorium furnace and posting it to a dating app."
> 
> useless fuckin wanker



Too many shades of wrong in one sentence.


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 23, 2015)

not-bono-ever said:


> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-31575460
> 
> "A Liberal Democrat candidate has apologised for taking a selfie in front of a crematorium furnace and posting it to a dating app."
> 
> useless fuckin wanker


why can't they just say tindr\grindr.

also how are these idiots allowed to run more than a bath


----------



## DotCommunist (Feb 23, 2015)

the button said:


> The same career path as his former boss Leon Brittan. Lovely.


also to buried in an unmarked secret grave to deny us our vengeance on his corpse


----------



## The Boy (Feb 23, 2015)

DotCommunist said:


> why can't they just say tindr\grindr.



They mention Tinder in the article.  Also Facebook, though


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2015)

I was chatting to my Dad today and remembering the old joke about the Liberal Party having so few MPs they could hold their meetings in the back of a London taxi.

I vaguely remember some sort of chart showing the longterm decline measured against size of vehicle they could all fit in, but a quick google leaves me thinking that may just have been my imagination.

Anyway, they currently have 56 MPs, which means they all could fit in a standard sized coach.

What size vehicle do we think they'll be down to come May?

ETA: current forecasts look like mid twenties, which would mean one of those midi-buses, but maybe they could go down to mini-bus, MPV or even back to the bad old Taxi days...


----------



## brogdale (Feb 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> I was chatting to my Dad today and remembering the old joke about the Liberal Party having so few MPs they could hold their meetings in the back of a London taxi.
> 
> I vaguely remember some sort of chart showing the longterm decline measured against size of vehicle they could all fit in, but a quick google leaves me thinking that may just have been my imagination.
> 
> ...


OV 102 ?


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2015)

brogdale said:


> OV 102 ?



I think that's the answer to a different question, ie what vehicle would you like to see them travel in...


----------



## Puddy_Tat (Feb 27, 2015)

andysays said:


> I was chatting to my Dad today and remembering the old joke about the Liberal Party having so few MPs they could hold their meetings in the back of a London taxi..



Slight exaggeration - the Liberals had 6 MPs after the 1951, 1955 and 1959 elections, then got as high as 12 in 1966, 6 again in 1970, then have been in double figures since.


----------



## andysays (Feb 27, 2015)

Puddy_Tat said:


> Slight exaggeration - the Liberals had 6 MPs after the 1951, 1955 and 1959 elections, then got as high as 12 in 1966, 6 again in 1970, then have been in double figures since.



According to this, they got down to five at their lowest.


> In 1957 this total fell to five when one of the Liberal MPs died and the subsequent by-election was lost to the Labour Party, which selected the former Liberal Deputy Leader Lady Megan Lloyd George as its own candidate. The Liberal Party seemed close to extinction. During this low period, it was often joked that Liberal MPs could hold meetings in the back of one taxi.



I'm still hopeful that they can beat this at some point


----------



## campanula (Feb 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> what vehicle would you like to see them travel in...



a tumbril


----------



## The Boy (Feb 28, 2015)

andysays said:


> What size vehicle do we think they'll be down to come May?
> 
> ...



Would it be too much to hope for	hearse?


----------



## brogdale (Mar 4, 2015)

5% in yesterday's YG national poll...lowest in 25 years, apparently.

Going well.


----------



## nino_savatte (Mar 4, 2015)

Taxi for the Lib Dems!


----------



## andysays (Mar 4, 2015)

nino_savatte said:


> Taxi for the Lib Dems!



Or even


----------



## brogdale (Mar 6, 2015)

3 local by-elections in London yesterday. In all 3 the LDs came last (after the Greens etc.) and not one candidate managed to gain 3-figure votes.

Lol

e2a : 5th in Selhurst (Croydon) with 65 votes.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

First lost deposit coming up...


----------



## DrRingDing (May 7, 2015)

"Total collapse"


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

There's one...


----------



## brogdale (May 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> There's one...


791.


----------



## mk12 (May 7, 2015)

They came last!!!


----------



## DrRingDing (May 7, 2015)

791 for Sunderland south


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

They lost no deposits last time. 100% record this time.


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

Second one.

2/2


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

Here's the expected declaration times - anyone want to hazard a guess at how far down the list we'll be before the first lib-dem saved deposit?


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

3/3


----------



## JimW (May 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Here's the expected declaration times - anyone want to hazard a guess at how far down the list we'll be before the first lib-dem saved deposit?


Looks.like one of the.Scottish island seats comes.soonish, maybe.that?


----------



## JTG (May 7, 2015)

JimW said:


> Looks.like one of the.Scottish island seats comes.soonish, maybe.that?


Western Isles? Labour stronghold innit

Going SNP possibly. No Lib Dem votes here


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

JimW said:


> Looks.like one of the.Scottish island seats comes.soonish, maybe.that?


Na h-Eileanan an Iar ? They only got 7% there last time.


----------



## Dogsauce (May 7, 2015)

For any of you folk on Twitter:


----------



## JimW (May 7, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Na h-Eileanan an Iar ? They only got 7% there last time.


Ah, mixing it up with Orkney. Labour-SNP in Western Isles?


----------



## butchersapron (May 7, 2015)

Nuneaton is a poss.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 7, 2015)

http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/this-is-how-much-deposit-money-the-lib-dems-have-lost-so-far


----------



## JTG (May 8, 2015)

Senior Lib Dem source: Danny Alexander has lost


----------



## JimW (May 8, 2015)

JTG said:


> Senior Lib Dem source: Danny Alexander has lost


I'm liking any post that mentions this


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

JTG said:


> Senior Lib Dem source: Danny Alexander has lost



Is it safe to 'Munce' him on Twitter, or would that be presumptive?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

First actual lib-dem held seat is eastleigh - expected at 2ish.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)




----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

lol


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

4/4


----------



## JTG (May 8, 2015)




----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Did the lib-dems arrogance really allow them to imagine people would just forget by 2015? All that rose garden shit with cameron? Everything?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Lib-dems in putney up - 17% last time, first real test...


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

ooh - around 4.9-5.1%?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

6.3%  - damn it.


----------



## JimW (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> ooh - around 4.9-5.1%?


Slightly better break to Labour there it looks


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

JimW said:


> Slightly better break to Labour there it looks


0.4%

Not a seat they would have put much effort in, but still...should be higher...


----------



## Quartz (May 8, 2015)

5/5 lost deposits so far.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

No it's not. It's 4/5.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

**


----------



## JTG (May 8, 2015)




----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2015)

suspected they would keep beastliegh white phos the place


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Tooting on the border as well.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Yes, another lost deposit.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

And another in battersea. Losing track now.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Cable recount. The cunt.


----------



## DrRingDing (May 8, 2015)

Senior lib dem calling for leadership contest


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

DrRingDing said:


> Senior lib dem calling for leadership contest


If he is by the end of the night, he may well be the leader


----------



## DotCommunist (May 8, 2015)

`


brogdale said:


> If he is by the end of the night, he may well be the leader


king of an unelectable shitpile


----------



## DrRingDing (May 8, 2015)

2% in Nuneaton


----------



## mk12 (May 8, 2015)

My local LD MP has conceded defeat to Cons.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

First lib-dem defence - Ceredigion


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

They hold. Drat.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

So they have at least one.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> So they have at least one.


the current leader?


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> the current leader?


I wonder if they have a rule that the leader must be an MP?


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> I wonder if they have a rule that the leader must be an MP?


if Clegg hangs on, perhaps Willaims might defect to PC


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Did they really must get 80 votes in castle point?


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Did they really must get 80 votes in castle point?


yep


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Yes they did, 0.2%. Wow.


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> Yes they did, 0.2%. Wow.


Pollsters got their % wrong as well.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


> Pollsters got their % wrong as well.


That's their worst result since 1859 apparently.


----------



## moochedit (May 8, 2015)




----------



## ItWillNeverWork (May 8, 2015)

Bye bye Vince.


----------



## cesare (May 8, 2015)

Cable and Swinson, together responsible for the ET fees system, both gone


----------



## Stay Beautiful (May 8, 2015)

Ah Vince Cable, not making any gags about going from Stalin to Mr.Bean now are you?


----------



## moochedit (May 8, 2015)

clegg keeps seat


----------



## DrRingDing (May 8, 2015)

Clegg "Cruel and punishing night". 

Bless.


----------



## Tankus (May 8, 2015)

Nodded off and missed Hughes


----------



## 8ball (May 8, 2015)

Tankus said:


> Nodded off and missed Hughes



Caught that one at least.

Was just thinking 'yeah, that's for Tatchell'.


----------



## Flavour (May 8, 2015)

Ta ra lib dems, we hardly knew ye... 

Might they just merge with the tories?


----------



## redsquirrel (May 8, 2015)

I know it will change but the current share of the vote has the SNP on 5.3% and the LDs on 7.8% Ha Ha

And have lost £145,000 in deposits


----------



## Barking_Mad (May 8, 2015)

Never trust a liberal. Ever. Ever ever. Never ever ever.


----------



## Roadkill (May 8, 2015)

Must admit, I expected last night to be bad for the yellow vermin, but I didn't expect this much of a rout.  Fucking cold comfort though, like.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 8, 2015)

LDs remaining

Nick Clegg in Sheffield Hallam; John Pugh in Southport; Mark Williams in Ceredigion; Tom Brake in Carshalton & Wallington; Alistair Carmichael in Orkney & Shetland; Greg Mulholland in Leeds North West; Tim Farron in Westmorland & Lonsdale; and Tom Brake in Carshalton & Wallington
And here are the four left to declare.

Berwick upon Tweed; Chippenham (Duncan Hames); Wells (Tessa Munt); and St Ives (Andrew George).


Pantsdown what a cunt.


----------



## kabbes (May 8, 2015)

I am so not surprised by the LD wipeout.  I was surprised at the predictions of 20-30 seats.  I always thought they'd hit single figures.  There is literally no point to them now.  They totally misunderstood their own voter base.


----------



## co-op (May 8, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> LDs remaining
> 
> Nick Clegg in Sheffield Hallam; John Pugh in Southport; Mark Williams in Ceredigion; Tom Brake in Carshalton & Wallington; Alistair Carmichael in Orkney & Shetland; Greg Mulholland in Leeds North West; Tim Farron in Westmorland & Lonsdale; and Tom Brake in Carshalton & Wallington
> And here are the four left to declare.
> ...



And Norman Lamb in North Norfolk (held his seat).


----------



## kabbes (May 8, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> LDs remaining
> 
> Nick Clegg in Sheffield Hallam; John Pugh in Southport; Mark Williams in Ceredigion; Tom Brake in Carshalton & Wallington; Alistair Carmichael in Orkney & Shetland; Greg Mulholland in Leeds North West; Tim Farron in Westmorland & Lonsdale; and Tom Brake in Carshalton & Wallington
> And here are the four left to declare.
> ...


You've listed Brake twice.

Widely dispersed, they now are.


----------



## co-op (May 8, 2015)

Tessa Munt's a gonner surely?


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> LDs remaining
> 
> Nick Clegg in Sheffield Hallam; John Pugh in Southport; Mark Williams in Ceredigion; Tom Brake in Carshalton & Wallington; Alistair Carmichael in Orkney & Shetland; Greg Mulholland in Leeds North West; Tim Farron in Westmorland & Lonsdale; and Tom Brake in Carshalton & Wallington
> And here are the four left to declare.
> ...


In the circumstances/rubble of what used to be his party...it's actually quite funny that Clegg hung on to his seat. Now he's got to hang around for a bit to experience his humiliation. Of course, until Cameron gets him out to Europe and Lab then finally take the by.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 8, 2015)

kabbes said:


> You've listed Brake twice.
> 
> Widely dispersed, they now are.


Bah teach me from c&ping the guardian.


----------



## Puddy_Tat (May 8, 2015)

Labour just managed to take (a distant) second place from the lib dems in Wokingham (where the lib dems have campaigned on the "it's a two horse race, labour can't win here" line all the time I've been here)

Lib dems fifth place in quite a few S London seats

Oh dear, how sad...


----------



## the button (May 8, 2015)

Quartz said:


> I'm not convinced that Cameron is really in charge. He bent right over to get the LDs on board, and Clegg successfully scared him with the negotiations with Labour. Give it time and good PR and the LDs can turn this around.


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

redsquirrel said:


> Bah teach me from c&ping the guardian.


generally 'teach me to' not 'teach me from'


----------



## Belushi (May 8, 2015)

They can start going to meetings in one cab again :thumbs :


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Form not losing a single deposit in 2010 to losing them in over 50% of seats so far (335). Game well and truly over.


----------



## redsquirrel (May 8, 2015)

Belushi said:


> They can start going to meetings in one cab again :thumbs :


Well they'll need to economise after all those lost deposits.


----------



## Belushi (May 8, 2015)

When was the last time they were down to eight seats? The seventies under Steel?

All those decades of building gone..


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

Belushi said:


> When was the last time they were down to eight seats? The seventies under Steel?
> 
> All those decades of building gone..


built on sand


----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

Belushi said:


> They can start going to meetings in one cab again :thumbs :


hopefully in one cell


----------



## brogdale (May 8, 2015)




----------



## Pickman's model (May 8, 2015)

brogdale said:


>


whining  here


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Pickman's model said:


> built on sand


Built on cunts.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

The final - vicious malevolent- act of the party was to swing behind the Tories in the marginals, helping produce last night's results.


----------



## cesare (May 8, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> The final - vicious malevolent- act of the party was to swing behind the Tories in the marginals, helping produce last night's results.


It's almost as though they didn't quite believe Cameron when he clearly stated "no coalitions"


----------



## Dogsauce (May 8, 2015)

So you can drive them in a minibus without needing a special license? (think the limits 9 seats).

Dropped 20-odd percent in my constituency to 2.7%.

Mulholland being talked of as a leader, the pro-life fuck.

I want to see the reworked bar charts on their election leaflets now.


----------



## Quartz (May 8, 2015)

the button said:


>



They were soundly lacking good PR.


----------



## butchersapron (May 8, 2015)

Each lib dem leadership candidate needs the support of 10% of the parties MPs. Each MP now constitutes 12.5% of that total.


----------



## Belushi (May 8, 2015)

Jeez Cleggs speech is self serving, he looks bloody ill though


----------



## Santino (May 8, 2015)

kabbes said:


> Widely dispersed, they now are.


 Around the survivors a perimeter create.


----------



## Flanflinger (May 8, 2015)

Belushi said:


> Jeez Cleggs speech is self serving, he looks bloody ill though



His Mum should have told him, if you play with fire..............................


----------



## butchersapron (May 10, 2015)

Deceased candidate sees vote rise more than Lib Dem rival



> A man who died during the UK election campaign in Hampstead & Kilburn constituency saw a greater increase in his vote than his living Liberal Democrat rival


----------



## gosub (May 10, 2015)

they lost half the councils they controlled (down to 4) and 33% of their councillers (down to 603,) as well.


----------



## JTG (May 10, 2015)

Well at least now nobody's going to describe the West Country as a Lib Dem heartland


----------



## Belushi (May 10, 2015)

thousands of new members every day they're claiming..


----------



## Pickman's model (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> thousands of new members every day they're claiming..


thousands of new members deny every day they're joining


----------



## YouSir (May 10, 2015)

Hope Lib Dem HQ aren't getting too excited, even Lib Dems can't trust Lib Dems at this point. By next election they'll be down to two pensioners and a dog. And even the dog'll secretly vote Tory.


----------



## gosub (May 10, 2015)

YouSir said:


> Hope Lib Dem HQ aren't getting too excited, even Lib Dems can't trust Lib Dems at this point. By next election they'll be down to two pensioners and a dog. And even the dog'll secretly vote Tory.



tbf dogs have never fogotten or forgiven Jeremy Thorpe


----------



## BigTom (May 10, 2015)

Belushi said:


> thousands of new members every day they're claiming..



Saw a tweet from some local group or other saying they'd seen membership rise by 1/3rd. My immediate thought was that someone new had joined the local group, raising them from 2 to 3 members


----------



## brogdale (May 10, 2015)

BigTom said:


> Saw a tweet from some local group or other saying they'd seen membership rise by 1/3rd. My immediate thought was that someone new had joined the local group, raising them from 2 to 3 members


Sal Brinton said same on R5 this am. It was part of her patter about how so many people had told her that their fear of SNP had 'compelled' them to vote tory...but they never intended to lose their lovely, cuddly local LD MP or elect a tory government. Yeah, right.


----------



## butchersapron (May 16, 2015)

They now control only 6 out of 433 councils. And have only 1659 out of 21 000 councillors.


----------



## tim (May 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They now control only 6 out of 433 councils. And have only 1659 out of 21 000 councillors.




So the only way is up!


----------



## redsquirrel (May 16, 2015)

butchersapron said:


> They now control only 6 out of 433 councils. And have only 1659 out of 21 000 councillors.


From the council results it looks like that defection of LDs to the Tories at the Westminster level also carried across to the local level. 

List of the six LD councils

Cheltenham
Eastbourne
Eastleigh
Oadby & Wigston
South Lakeland
Sutton


----------

