To the Lib/Dems on here & supporters.

[Leekbrookgull]

You have got what you have wanted,change in the voting system. So sit tight,play it safe. Force CMD out now and the PUBLIC will wipe you out.

 

[fruitnveg]

You have got what you have wanted,change in the voting system. So sit tight,play it safe. Force CMD out now and the PUBLIC will wipe you out.

This is the massive labour minority you're talking about?

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Their dreams of PR will still be dreams after the referendum , if the coalition lasts the full term the LibDems will only end up with a handful of seats after the next election.

 

[Cosmic Joker]

You have got what you have wanted,change in the voting system.

Oh, has the AV referendum happened already? I must have missed it! Not a done deal at all and AV is a heavy compromise anyway, not a proportional system. What most Lib Dems and other PR supporters are really after long term IMO is the Single Transferable Vote, which is the preference of the Electoral Reform Society. That's still looking a long way off indeed.

 

[Silent Bob]

The Lib Dem vote will collapse next go round WHATEVER happens.

They're not looking like they're going to bring the government down anyway... maybe if the AV referendum fails, or the cuts get too much for them to stomach (or both) there will be a bit of trouble.

The future of the lib dems could be quite interesting... they're controlled by right leaning "economic liberal" orange book types, and now they're involved in a government that mostly follows that principle, but that might not work for the left leaning members and voters (which I still think is most of 'em). If they defected to the Labour party under a new leader they could give them a real sense of being something other than New Labour, give them real credibility on things like civil liberties. And Cameron could take the rest and lessen the potential influence of some of the more... UKIP elements of his party.

Probably won't happen. But it would be interesting.

 

[Pavilionaire]

You have got what you have wanted,change in the voting system. So sit tight,play it safe. Force CMD out now and the PUBLIC will wipe you out.

The Tories vote never goes much above 42%, so to be "wiped out" the Lib Dems would have to lose massive ground to New Labour, a party that's mismanaged the economy so badly it makes the World War 2 debt look like pocket money.

I can't see New Labour bouncing back that quickly. Yes, they'll have a Miliband or two in charge but underneath it'll be the same old faces.

There's a long way to go and much can happen, but I'd be surprised if the Lib Dem vote went below 17% next time around.

 

[Scotty Mac]

the lib dems are f***ed

 

[Pavilionaire]

The biggest factor against the Lib Dems is not anything about them as such, but rather whether the British electorate is up for a second dose of coalition government.

 

[drew]

Surely the biggest factor against the lib-dems is their about turn on their principles in order to have an artificial slice of power. If it goes belly up and they change their leader for someone more traditionally in the lib mould they could still do comparatively well. However, if Clegg remains at the head it will be as disastrous for them as keeping Brown at the helm was for Labour last May.

 

[vulture]

anything is better than brown and co

 

[clapham_gull]

the lib dems are f***ed

I'm beginning to think the same.

They've managed to piss off a large chunk of their own supporters and any labour voter who was sympathetic towards them won't be thinking that now.

What's left are the supporters who are of the belief that anything is worth doing as long as they get in power. Irrespective of my own dislike of the party, I think they are in the minority.

Unlesss they start enforcing their own identity whilst in power, they are in real danger of being absolutely finished as a political party.

I think they may have made a mistake. They chose the Conservatives because they didn't think that Labour had the mandate for power. What they've found "in power", is they haven't got much of a mandate themselves.

 

[Pavilionaire]

But what were the Lib Dems supposed to do?

Because they were popular they were left holding the balance of power. They've chosen to go with the Tories, a move a majority of the country agree with, especially as Labour are bereft of ideas, need to regroup and are presently unfit to govern.

Thereafter they find themselves the minority party in government, and having not been in power since WW1 are negotiating from a weak position.

Therefore, they are forced to compromise. In an ideal world they'd be in coalition with Labour, where there's less clear blue water between them, but Clegg took the decision that the country had probably had enough of Labour.

I don't see much that they could have done differently. The electoral system is what caused this problem and the Lib Dems are looking to change it. I think voters need to get their heads round the fact consensus politics could be here for some time.

 

[larus]

The last opion poll I saw reported on the news last week said that a large percentage thought the coalition was doing a good job.
I think the question for all of these bitter Labour voters should be, 'How would the public have viewed Lib Dems for supporting Labour?'.
Most reasonable people realise that Brown totally f***ed the economy, so how could he possibly be supported, and if he wasn't, how could a new person be installed as prime-minister who hasn't stood? I realise that constitutionally it is allowed; I mean in reality, the outcry would have been huge - 2 consecutive Labour PM's who weren't elected.

 

[Tooting Gull]

But what were the Lib Dems supposed to do?

Because they were popular they were left holding the balance of power. They've chosen to go with the Tories, a move a majority of the country agree with, especially as Labour are bereft of ideas, need to regroup and are presently unfit to govern.

Thereafter they find themselves the minority party in government, and having not been in power since WW1 are negotiating from a weak position.

Therefore, they are forced to compromise. In an ideal world they'd be in coalition with Labour, where there's less clear blue water between them, but Clegg took the decision that the country had probably had enough of Labour.

I don't see much that they could have done differently. The electoral system is what caused this problem and the Lib Dems are looking to change it. I think voters need to get their heads round the fact consensus politics could be here for some time.

Agree with most of that, especially that they didn't have a huge amount of choice, and even though they as a party are closer to Labour (I'm not sure Clegg himself is, incidentally) Labour didn't deserve another crack in any form. The one choice the LibDems did have was to effectively call another election by not signing up, but some people could see the Cabinet beckoning and weren't about to pass that opportunity up.

The real risk to the LibDems lies in the fact that many of those who voted for them don't agree with what they have signed up to, ie the depth, range and speed of the proposed cuts, and IF you alienate the majority of your core support (not proven yet) then you probably are f**ked.

Everything above relies on them being seen as a serious, credible political force, and all the supposed benefits of coalition rely on them having some negotiating sway with the Conservatives. If they don't have that, or not on any of the important stuff, they will be badly damaged and it's hard to see how they wouldn't lose votes from all over the shop - existing voters, and potential recruits.

 

[HH Brighton]

But what were the Lib Dems supposed to do?

Because they were popular they were left holding the balance of power. They've chosen to go with the Tories, a move a majority of the country agree with, especially as Labour are bereft of ideas, need to regroup and are presently unfit to govern.

Thereafter they find themselves the minority party in government, and having not been in power since WW1 are negotiating from a weak position.

Therefore, they are forced to compromise. In an ideal world they'd be in coalition with Labour, where there's less clear blue water between them, but Clegg took the decision that the country had probably had enough of Labour.

I don't see much that they could have done differently. The electoral system is what caused this problem and the Lib Dems are looking to change it. I think voters need to get their heads round the fact consensus politics could be here for some time.

Well they could have stuck to their principals and not supported a conservative party where in reality there was hardly any commen ground between the two. They took the view that it would be better to try and influence the Conservative government from within but in reality they have just been rail roaded into extreme cuts that the majority of their party do not support. Surley there is only so long they can keep realing out the 'this is what we inherited' line to disguise cuts that the Conservatives were always likely to make regardless of the economic situation.
Every Conservative government has always raised VAT as soon as they get in yet they treat us like idiots by disguising it as 'must do' to aid economic growth.
The policy of cutting all public sector areas is reliant on the private being able to grow the economy which is very high risk and unlikely to work, time will tell, but our political system doesn't give us many other voting alternatives so who knows what the future holds. I have the feeling that a Labour party that could get itself together would not have to do too much to regain power but whether they are capable of that is another matter.

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Even with STV the Libdems would have had to be part of a coalition to govern. I suppose many within the party would have prefered to have been with labour, but that wasn't really a possobility both in terms of mathematics and of having power (Labour would never have given up as much as the Tories have given up)

We'll have to see how the coalition fairs but it seems to have got past its infancy without any major problems, and I think it will last the full five years.

Who knows what will happen at the next election, but I wouldn't bet against their being another libcon coalition

 

[Hatterlovesbrighton]

Agree with most of that, especially that they didn't have a huge amount of choice, and even though they as a party are closer to Labour (I'm not sure Clegg himself is, incidentally) Labour didn't deserve another crack in any form. The one choice the LibDems did have was to effectively call another election by not signing up, but some people could see the Cabinet beckoning and weren't about to pass that opportunity up.

The real risk to the LibDems lies in the fact that many of those who voted for them don't agree with what they have signed up to, ie the depth, range and speed of the proposed cuts, and IF you alienate the majority of your core support (not proven yet) then you probably are f**ked.

Everything above relies on them being seen as a serious, credible political force, and all the supposed benefits of coalition rely on them having some negotiating sway with the Conservatives. If they don't have that, or not on any of the important stuff, they will be badly damaged and it's hard to see how they wouldn't lose votes from all over the shop - existing voters, and potential recruits.

But the next election is 4.5 years away. Maybe they'll lose a few councils and maybe an MEP or two, but thats a small price to pay for the experience of being in Government. At the next election they'll be judged on the situation at the time of the election.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Well I supported them, and I echo the 'what were they supposed to do' post. I vote for them because I want their ideas in government. It would be daft for them to then turn that down just to shore up their 22% of the vote.

 

[beorhthelm]

i suspect Liberals will be less effected in the real polls than many think. there is more core common ground between Liberals and Conservatives (at least the centre/one nation branch) than there is with Labour. Labour are traditionally against economic liberalism and libertarianism, things Liberals and Conservatives share. the social liberalism is area open for discussion, no one has the excatly right answer so there's room for compromise.

Liberal voters are more likly to stick with Liberals than switch, unless they were tactical anyway. i think there are more Eastbournes. Lewes and Twickenhams, switching between Conservatives and Liberals, than there are Bermondseys.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Well they could have stuck to their principals and not supported a conservative party where in reality there was hardly any commen ground between the two.

I totally disagree. The easy thing to do would have been to hop into bed with Labour; the Lib Dems would have had a much better negotiating position and probably would have got more of their own policies adopted.

Clegg showed that he WAS a man of principle by giving the Tories the opportunity to form a coalition because he recognised the country had just rejected Labour and the people didn't want more of them.

The other point that's key is Labour didn't want to entertain the idea of coalition whereas Cameron did. I think while Cameron and Clegg are both in charge and the spirit of co-operation remains between them the coalition will do OK.

As for the VAT increase and other government cuts I think now they're in government the Lib Dems can see just how f***ed our finances are. Drastic action has to be taken, I think they buy into that.