Stoatwobbler Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 They're showing a remarkable lack of sense, in that case. Why would they vote for a particular manifesto, and then be unhappy that some parts of that manifesto were being implemented instead of none of it? Because they might not be happy about which policies have been dropped and which have been kept. People don't vote Lib Dem solely because they want a referendum on proportional representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
espadrille Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 But as the Daily Mail acknowledged on Saturday, the changes that are now implemented will be directly as a result of the influence from the Liberal democrats. . As I have mentioned before, (may be it is just because I speak to balanced individuals who can see reason) I have not yet spoke to one activist or member who is vehemently opposed to what Clegg has done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms Macbeth Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Because they might not be happy about which policies have been dropped and which have been kept. People don't vote Lib Dem solely because they want a referendum on proportional representation. If the alternative (which it was) was to have NO policies implemented, then I think they'd be more happy than otherwise. The LD's have had virtually no power since they were formed, and the outcome of this election has given them some - including some members of the cabinet. I also read that the coalition have recruited a well respected Labour backbencher to their cause - Frank Field. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127917.ece. Perhaps we'll eventually get people running the country who have been chosen for their skills and experience instead of them belonging to a particular party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truconstruct Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 If the alternative (which it was) was to have NO policies implemented, then I think they'd be more happy than otherwise. The LD's have had virtually no power since they were formed, and the outcome of this election has given them some - including some members of the cabinet. I also read that the coalition have recruited a well respected Labour backbencher to their cause - Frank Field. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7127917.ece. Perhaps we'll eventually get people running the country who have been chosen for their skills and experience instead of them belonging to a particular party. Spot on Macbeth. I think the appointment of Field is a very smart move by the new administration in that he's known to be left of center in the LP, one of the old left one might say. Plus I think Frank will do a job of work, he's truely a great guy, a man of intergrety, and definitely not one of those nu-labour traitors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grandad.Malky Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Lib Dem activists have "overwhelmingly" backed leader Nick Clegg's coalition deal with the Conservatives. . overwhelmingly The conference had no power to overturn the coalition agreement Mr Clegg told the Guardian newspaper on Saturday he knew the deal had caused "much surprise and some offence". Others said although they would have preferred a power-sharing deal with Labour, they believed it would not have been a realistic option. But former Lib Dem leader Mr Kennedy has said he could not bring himself to back Mr Clegg in a vote of Lib Dem MPs on Tuesday and feared the Lib Dems would be swallowed up by the Tories, wrecking the chance of a left wing "progressive alliance overwhelmingly Ya right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 My own suspicion was that, given an equal choice between the two, the Lib-Dems would rather ally with Labour. However, it never was an equal choice; ally with the Tories and you have a strong, stable government, but ally with Labour and you would still be teetering on the precipice. It depends on the Lib-Dem. The ones I've spoken to in my local Liberal club from were more in line with Labour, yet the middle class Lib-Dems were more in line with the Tories. Never a truer word was spoken when it was said the Lib-Dems were the "centre party". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Because they might not be happy about which policies have been dropped and which have been kept. If that is true, then having all of them dropped would still be a worse outcome, so they are not being sensible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 If that is true, then having all of them dropped would still be a worse outcome, so they are not being sensible. Ah, but they may have made concessions on things that they don't them want to make concessions on. Plus there was the option for the Lib Dem's of forming a "coalition of losers" with Labour, Greens etc so it's not like they didn't have a choice. Mind you, it's a bit early for the tensions to really start rising on either side. I'd wait until the budget at the very least before the 2 sides start on each other, maybe even later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
in dee Posted May 18, 2010 Share Posted May 18, 2010 Nick Clegg Public Meeting in Sheffield Location:King Edward VII School Upper Site, Time:Friday, 21 May 2010 18:30 Taken off his Facebook page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted May 19, 2010 Share Posted May 19, 2010 Not all Lib Dems have lost out: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1279471/Katie-Green-helps-Lembit-Opik-ease-pain-losing-Parliament-seat.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.