LibDem Councillor says party faces being wiped out by Labour

[Tony]

....

 

 

 

http://www.liverpooldailypost.co.uk/liverpool-fc/liverpool-fc-news/2010/07/09/liverpool-lib-dem-leader-warren-bradley-we-ll-be-wiped-out-by-coalition-with-conservatives-92534-26816261/

 

I was discussing this and the budget with a colleague at work, his view was that from his contacts with people in Hallam, Nick Clegg would not be elected there again and that if he wanted to retain his seat he would have to look for a safe seat elsewhere in the country.

 

What do the LibDems think they are achieving being in Govt with the most regressive Govt we have seen since Thatcher, in fact already in many people's eyes more so?

 

Will the LibDems split over this? or will the LibDems find their voice and start opposing the Govt.s policies in Parliament?

 

You seem to be under the misapprehension that your friends sample is representative or typical. I expect that you will find that Hallam has more Conservative voters who vote Lib-Dem than Lib-Dem voters who would swap to Labour in reaction to some perceived slight by Nick Clegg.

 

With a majority of 15k over the 2nd placed Conservative his seat is safe.

 

The mardy waah waah from silly tactical voting Labour supporters is becoming more than a little nauseating. They should be concentrating on rebuilding their own broken, derelict and irrelevant party to avoid a dozen years in the wilderness.

[truman]

because he had the most votes overall? or because he changed the boundaries to the countries constituencies to make less votes required for labour to have a majority? or because he had the most seats in parliment?

 

how exactly did that gormy oath of a short sighted man deserve to win the election? the fact is the mess the country is in is because of him.

 

I think you've missed Rupert's point somewhat...

[Cyclone]

i was on about local elections... and of course they could win some MPs but not enough MPs to run the country. why would you think that a political party based around sheffield, for the people of sheffield, would be designed to rule the country.

 

god sake

 

With you having mentioned Tony Blair in the previous post I assumed that we were talking about national politics.

 

I don't really understand what a Sheffield party with regards to local elections would be. In the local elections we are voting for locals of various political affiliation, but they all want to do their best for Sheffield, they just disagree as to what 'best' is.

[Wildcat]

With you having mentioned Tony Blair in the previous post I assumed that we were talking about national politics.

 

I don't really understand what a Sheffield party with regards to local elections would be. In the local elections we are voting for locals of various political affiliation, but they all want to do their best for Sheffield, they just disagree as to what 'best' is.

 

Maybe something like the Barnsley Independent Group?

 

I don't know enough about them to condemn or comend them, but it sounds like the sort of thing he is talking about.

[Rupert_Baehr]

because he had the most votes overall? or because he changed the boundaries to the countries constituencies to make less votes required for labour to have a majority? or because he had the most seats in parliment?

 

Neither.

 

how exactly did that gormy oath of a short sighted man deserve to win the election? the fact is the mess the country is in is because of him.

 

Precisely. He dug the hole and dropped the country in it; he should've been given the shovel and required to dig it back out .... though he would probably just have dug a deeper hole.

 

Unfortunately, sometimes people just don't get what they deserve ...

[Titanic99]

Neither.

 

 

 

 

 

Unfortunately, sometimes people just don't get what they deserve ...

 

What about you Rupert, care to tell us how much richer you are now after Labours term in office and whether or not you got what you deserved.

[Wildcat]

You seem to be under the misapprehension that your friends sample is representative or typical. I expect that you will find that Hallam has more Conservative voters who vote Lib-Dem than Lib-Dem voters who would swap to Labour in reaction to some perceived slight by Nick Clegg.

 

With a majority of 15k over the 2nd placed Conservative his seat is safe.

 

The mardy waah waah from silly tactical voting Labour supporters is becoming more than a little nauseating. They should be concentrating on rebuilding their own broken, derelict and irrelevant party to avoid a dozen years in the wilderness.

 

Why would Conservative voters, vote for the LibDems in Hallam?

 

You seem to have forgotten or were perhaps unaware of the LibDems (and indeed many Tories) beliefs in fairness.

 

One article here of interest for context about research I have quoted that you have previously dismissed, according to this LibDem article has cross party support:

http://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-support-the-equality-pledge-18694.html

 

But then unlike the majority of voters you don't seem all that bothered about fairness, perhaps then that is why these arguments and points make so little sense to you.

 

Either way the evidence is that a large proportion of the electorate, including LibDem and Tory voters do care.

 

Here again are the asperations to equality and tackling poverty from Nick Clegg himself that made the LibDems an attractive choice for those interested in an alternative to a party damaged for taking us in to an illegal war, and for voters that did not want to go back to go back to the nastiness of Thatcherism.

http://www.libdemvoice.org/clegg-lib-dem-social-mobility-commission-shatters-the-idea-that-britain-in-2009-is-a-free-and-fair-society-10117.html

 

All worthy and attractive asperations.

 

But what do we get when they come to power? Endorsement for a budget where the poor pay 6 times more than the wealthy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/27/osborne-budget-cuts-hit-poorest

 

And what is his defence? Well it would be a progressive budget if the IFS had factored in LibDem good intentions and future as yet undisclosed progressive policies......

http://www.nextleft.org/2010/06/has-clegg-made-most-creative-challenge.html

 

That is a pretty pathetic excuse for betraying the values he stood for election on, even by politicians standards. The electorate aren't stupid, many are sat back gobsmacked at their betrayal and angry. An anger that will become all the more evident as the year goes on and the detail to the cuts comes out and begins to have an impact.

[Jason Bourne]

Given that in most major northern cities, the Lib-Dems sole reason for existence is to oppose Labour, the claim makes no sense at all.

 

I don't agree... I suspect many in the posher parts of the North, such as Hallam constituency, many voted Lib Dem tactically to keep the Tories out. I believe that was the case at the previous 2005 election.

[Jason Bourne]

The Lib Dem voters got what they wanted, Lib Dems in power. They were never going take a majority of the vote themselves so they were always going to have to form a coalition to get in power at all.

 

If they're facing a uproar for joining with the Tories, imagine the uproar had they propped up a failing Labour government.

 

True.

 

Cleggy promised he wouldn't prop up the Labour party in a coalition, so he had to put his money where his mouth is...

[andyofborg]

Both of those articles are complete nonsense propoganda. You don't calculate national debt by adding in total public sector pension liabilities... it makes as much sense as adding in 30 years of wage bills.

 

The facts of the matter is that public debt was 42% of GDP when labour came to power and 37% of GDP in 2007. If you add in public sector pensions to both those figures, considering the changes already made to them the difference would be even greater and Labour would appear even more frugal.

 

Hardly Labour gourging itself on debt. It was the banking crisis that has caused this mess and it is the banks and financial sector that should be paying to get us out of it.

 

GDP in 2007 was far higher than it was in 1997, 37% of a big number is still far more than 42% of a smaller number

 

So yes, Labour did gorge on debt and left us in a far worse condition to weather the storm of the banking crisis.