|
Post by mattmw on May 7, 2011 8:36:33 GMT 1
Interesting comment Dave, bizarre but interesting. Lib Dems voters are generally left wing. Conservatism is in many ways the opposite of what they stand for. Harsher sentences for drugs / legalisation of cannabis Pro life / pro choice Stronger policing / personal freedoms Low tax / In previous election raising income tax Sit down with your average Lib Dem and they don't like the Tories as much as a Labour voter would not. Add in that lots of Labour voters tactically vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out in Lib / Tory fights. Very, very few Liberal Democrat voters would have any desire to be following a Tory agenda. That is why they unleashed hell on Clegg yesterday: it was not just about tuition fees. Think you can add bank reform and protection of public services to that list too. At the election lib dems were big on reforming the banking system, which many see as being at the heart of our economic problems, yet they seem to have rolled over to the conservatives on that policy too. Similarly the conservatives seem to be pressing ahead with reforms to the NHS which I dont think many lib dems would support. Aside from a brief time in power can't see what the lib dems are actually getting out of the coalition - other than a massive fall in their vote
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 7, 2011 8:51:40 GMT 1
Think you can add bank reform and protection of public services to that list too. And tuition fees! The bottom line is if your average Lib Dem voter knew a yellow vote would get a blue government then they would have voted red.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2011 9:24:07 GMT 1
Interesting comment Dave, bizarre but interesting. Lib Dems voters are generally left wing. Conservatism is in many ways the opposite of what they stand for. Harsher sentences for drugs / legalisation of cannabis Pro life / pro choice Stronger policing / personal freedoms Low tax / In previous election raising income tax Sit down with your average Lib Dem and they don't like the Tories as much as a Labour voter would not. Add in that lots of Labour voters tactically vote Lib Dem to keep the Tories out in Lib / Tory fights. Very, very few Liberal Democrat voters would have any desire to be following a Tory agenda. That is why they unleashed hell on Clegg yesterday: it was not just about tuition fees. this is all very true and is the point i have been making when people have suggested that "if they hadnt jump into bed with the tories, then they would have jumped into bed with Labour". It is a much smaller and more "imaginable" step for your "average" lib dem supporter to vote for and agree with Labour policies than it is for them to vote tory or support tory policies.
|
|
|
Post by bertymax on May 7, 2011 9:59:29 GMT 1
Clegg should have insisted on an A/V option on the A/V vote, that way the all the No voters would of had to have put Yes as their second option.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on May 7, 2011 10:31:00 GMT 1
Still a bizzare comment Dave, your explanation doesn't justify the remark to me.
I take it you were generalising.
|
|
|
Post by ThrobsBlackHat on May 7, 2011 10:42:28 GMT 1
Still a bizzare comment Dave, your explanation doesn't justify the remark to me. I take it you were generalising. If you are a core lib dem voter then a David Cameron led conservative government is about as welcome as Darth Vader at your kids birthday party. If you are a tactical lib dem voter then you are a labour supporter in a constituency where the only way you can show your opposition to the tories is to vote yellow. Either way, Nick Clegg putting the Tories into power despite the fact they had not won a majority is a bit like him shacking up with the devil, the exact opposite of what his supporters stand for, the thing you joke about being evil, moving over to the dark side. That is not my opinion, but yesterday's trouncing in the election was not just about tuition fees: it is because people feel he put into power the exact opposite of why they voted for him, and they are very, very angry about it.
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on May 7, 2011 10:53:18 GMT 1
But Portugal and Ireland implemented the same sort of 'tough' austerity packages that Osborne insists are the only way forward for us. The result? low growth and high unemployment resulting in the need for bailouts which of course mean more debt. Osborne then cites Portugal and Ireland as examples of the disaster that may befall the UK if we don't push ahead with his austerity programme! Not too sure that's a fair comparison. Ireland's cuts were/ are far far more significant than that of the UK - about 20% vs. 4% from what I can remember of the coverage on 5 live. Also people will point to Canada as an economy which took significant austerity measures to cut a significant deficit and would suggest that was the reason why it returned to economic growth. Personally I prefer the argument that they are heavily reliant on the US economy and that Canada's return to growth was more a by product of the performance of the economy South of the border. It's still too early to tell what the story will be come the end of the current Government's stint. As I understand it though, Ant, Canda's cuts were made at a time when the global economy was performing strongly, enabling them to rely on exports for growth. At the present time many countries within the EU - our main trading partner - are also embarking on their own austerity programmes, so the export market is less likely to provide the growth Osborne is looking for. Yes, we'll have to wait and see, but history does seem to teach us that trying to cut your way out of recession is a bad move (yes, I know we're not technically in recession at present, but it seems to be generally accepted that the economy's currently flat-lining at best).
|
|
|
Post by venceremos on May 7, 2011 11:31:55 GMT 1
Cameron will be the happiest leader today. Miliband still has it all to do. Clegg ploughs on with his bizarre Lib Dem suicide pact. The chance of meaningful electoral reform has been lost at least until the next time one of the big parties needs the support of a third party, perhaps not even then.
None of this is good.
Perhaps Clegg's instincts were noble and he really did think it was in the national interest to do a deal with the most unscrupulously power hungry organisation outside the Kremlin. The extraordinary thing is that he still hasn't learned his lesson. "Business as usual" - it's like watching an abused woman return to her abusive partner. We can only wonder why.
|
|