Tonight's televised debate

[Moriarty]

My prediction is that 2005 will turn out to have been the nadir of the Lib Dems recent electoral fortunes.

 

can't see it myself.

 

also:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/17/cameron-black-man-debate-gaffe

 

The "40-year-old black man" famously referred to by David Cameron in this week's televised election debate has hit out at the conservative leader for getting the story wrong.

 

Neal Forde was quoted by Cameron as being ashamed of Britain's "out-of-control" immigration system, but the Tory leader got the 51-year-old businessman's age wrong by 11 years.

 

He also told the audience of 9 million viewers that Forde had served in the Royal Navy for 30 years, when in fact he served for six.

 

Cameron referred to Forde, who runs a business supplying kitchen worktops, while speaking about immigration during the ITV debate on Thursday.

 

The Conservative leader said: "I was in Plymouth recently and a 40-year-old black man ... said, 'I came here when I was six, I've served in the Royal Navy for 30 years, I'm incredibly proud of my country. But I'm so ashamed that we've had this out-of-control system with people abusing it so badly'."

 

But Forde said the Conservatives did not have the answers to Britain's problems on immigration and, like Labour, had "forgotten the British people".

 

He said he had been teased by his friends and colleagues because of the inaccuracies in Cameron's anecdote.

 

"He said I spent 30 years in the navy when I was actually in for six years as a marine engineer," said Forde. "But at least he took 11 years off my age."

 

Forde, who has not yet decided who to vote for, was involved in the Icelandic "cod wars" in the late 1970s and left the service in 1980.

 

He said: "Britain needs immigrants. It's a rich and diverse country with a heritage to be proud of, but what I find unacceptable is that the politicians seem to care more about everybody else and forget the British people.

 

"What I want the politicians to tell me is what they are going to do to safeguard the British people from the immigrants who come here and commit serious crimes."

 

great stuff.

[shaun.lawson]

I'm not convinced you live in the same world as the rest of us Shaun. Which party did Nick Clegg belong to before the LibDems? And what specifically did Campbell do to make a Horlicks of things? Do you not recall the disquiet about the left leaning from within the party about the time they were tring to empty Kennedy?

 

I'm not sure the Tories were in a huge mess with Michael Howard as leader either. Again what specifically did he do that was so wrong in his short spell at the helm against the most accomplished electioneer (Blair) since Thatcher.

 

My prediction is that 2005 will turn out to have been the nadir of the Lib Dems recent electoral fortunes.

 

I'm talking 2001 to 2003 here, when IDS was Tory leader and many pundits spoke seriously about his party dying out completely. What did the Lib Dems do? Nothing. Why is Clegg now making such an astounding impact when neither Kennedy nor Campbell did?

 

Kennedy was effective up to a point because the public didn't take him seriously. Campbell was like a deer in the headlights as leader: he honestly looked like he sucked on a Fisherman's Friend whenever he spoke, and like many other politicians, was only effective when commenting from the outside. In the heat of the crucible, he simply melted down.

 

Meanwhile, poll after poll are telling an astonishing story. All three parties are incredibly close together, and the Lib Dems have all the momentum. For months now, it's felt to me like the Tories couldn't win, and I couldn't quite understand how they were so far clear in the polls. Huge numbers of people I've chatted with who've never voted Lib Dem before are about to do so now - and what it all translates to is the prospect of Labour - even if they finish 3rd on share of the vote, for heavens sake - being the largest party; Cameron and the Tories doing terribly given their expectations before the campaign; and a Labour/Lib Dem coalition government in which a move to proportional representation for Westminster becomes irresistible. And all because the Lib Dems have a hugely popular, impressive economics spokesman, and a leader the public are actually taking seriously.

[Danny Wilde]

Well, time will tell. But if we allow for the possibility of a Lab/LibDem coallition of some sort, surely Brown will NOT be allowed to remain as PM. The first demand of the LibDems would have to be that Brown steps aside, otherwise its no deal. Surely ???

 

I'm talking 2001 to 2003 here, when IDS was Tory leader and many pundits spoke seriously about his party dying out completely. What did the Lib Dems do? Nothing. Why is Clegg now making such an astounding impact when neither Kennedy nor Campbell did?

 

Kennedy was effective up to a point because the public didn't take him seriously. Campbell was like a deer in the headlights as leader: he honestly looked like he sucked on a Fisherman's Friend whenever he spoke, and like many other politicians, was only effective when commenting from the outside. In the heat of the crucible, he simply melted down.

 

Meanwhile, poll after poll are telling an astonishing story. All three parties are incredibly close together, and the Lib Dems have all the momentum. For months now, it's felt to me like the Tories couldn't win, and I couldn't quite understand how they were so far clear in the polls. Huge numbers of people I've chatted with who've never voted Lib Dem before are about to do so now - and what it all translates to is the prospect of Labour - even if they finish 3rd on share of the vote, for heavens sake - being the largest party; Cameron and the Tories doing terribly given their expectations before the campaign; and a Labour/Lib Dem coalition government in which a move to proportional representation for Westminster becomes irresistible. And all because the Lib Dems have a hugely popular, impressive economics spokesman, and a leader the public are actually taking seriously.

[shaun.lawson]

Well, time will tell. But if we allow for the possibility of a Lab/LibDem coallition of some sort, surely Brown will NOT be allowed to remain as PM. The first demand of the LibDems would have to be that Brown steps aside, otherwise its no deal. Surely ???

 

I would certainly hope so. If I were Clegg, I'd make two demands as sine qua nons: first, the ordering of removal vans to Downing Street, and the immediate departure of Brown and family. Second: a referendum on proportional representation, followed within a year by another general election. But the trouble is, it's hard to see who'd be PM instead. Miliband? Alan Johnson? Clegg? Cable?

 

Of course, if the Tories were the largest party but way short of a majority, the Lib Dems would be duty bound to attempt a coalition with them instead. A coalition between the parties finishing 2nd and 3rd would face massive problems in terms of legitimacy and credibility.

 

These are uncharted waters though. It's very exciting, because real change could be afoot, of the like we haven't seen before in modern times.

[Ulysses]

I'm talking 2001 to 2003 here, when IDS was Tory leader and many pundits spoke seriously about his party dying out completely. What did the Lib Dems do? Nothing. Why is Clegg now making such an astounding impact when neither Kennedy nor Campbell did?

 

Kennedy was effective up to a point because the public didn't take him seriously. Campbell was like a deer in the headlights as leader: he honestly looked like he sucked on a Fisherman's Friend whenever he spoke, and like many other politicians, was only effective when commenting from the outside. In the heat of the crucible, he simply melted down.

 

Jeezo, Shaun, you don't really do political analysis, do you?

 

Nobody that I know who knows politics (and they are numerous) seriously believed that the Conservatives were in any danger of "dying out completely". All they had to do was ditch IDS and gain a semblance of unity - which they did. And rather like the Alliance windmill-tilters of the early eighties, the Liberal Democrats of the early noughties discovered that in politics - as in many other endeavours - timing counts for a lot.

 

And can you remind me who was leader of the Liberal Democrats when they achieved the biggest seat haul managed by the "third party" since the 1920s?

[Moriarty]

I would certainly hope so. If I were Clegg, I'd make two demands as sine qua nons: first, the ordering of removal vans to Downing Street, and the immediate departure of Brown and family. Second: a referendum on proportional representation, followed within a year by another general election. But the trouble is, it's hard to see who'd be PM instead. Miliband? Alan Johnson? Clegg? Cable?

 

Of course, if the Tories were the largest party but way short of a majority, the Lib Dems would be duty bound to attempt a coalition with them instead. A coalition between the parties finishing 2nd and 3rd would face massive problems in terms of legitimacy and credibility.

 

These are uncharted waters though. It's very exciting, because real change could be afoot, of the like we haven't seen before in modern times.

 

the whole system is ridiculous when the percentage of the vote translates into such a different story in terms of the share of MPs.

 

I would be moist if the change to PR came about. Would totally change the face of british politics. Surely the Conservatives are the more likely of two to consider PR. In the current system they are being hard done by as well. The real losers in a move to PR is labour.

[shaun.lawson]

Jeezo, Shaun, you don't really do political analysis, do you?

 

Nobody that I know who knows politics (and they are numerous) seriously believed that the Conservatives were in any danger of "dying out completely". All they had to do was ditch IDS and gain a semblance of unity - which they did. And rather like the Alliance windmill-tilters of the early eighties, the Liberal Democrats of the early noughties discovered that in politics - as in many other endeavours - timing counts for a lot.

 

And can you remind me who was leader of the Liberal Democrats when they achieved the biggest seat haul managed by the "third party" since the 1920s?

 

In 19 days, the answer to that question will be Nick Clegg.

 

And on the contrary: the Tories could have split. Had they chosen Ken Clarke as leader, I'm convinced they would've done. Meanwhile, I'm not sure if you do political analysis either. I stated on here that Clegg won Thursday's debate; you thought Cameron had. And what's happened to their respective parties in the polls since?

[shaun.lawson]

the whole system is ridiculous when the percentage of the vote translates into such a different story in terms of the share of MPs.

 

I would be moist if the change to PR came about. Would totally change the face of british politics. Surely the Conservatives are the more likely of two to consider PR. In the current system they are being hard done by as well. The real losers in a move to PR is labour.

 

Indeed - but the Tories have been continually opposed to PR because they're terrified of a permanent centre-left coalition being the result. Think about it: there won't ever be 50% of people voting Conservative in the UK, but there are an automatic 50% who vote Labour or Lib Dem. It'd lock the Tories out completely; unless at some point there was a backlash from a public fed up with the blue rinse mob never getting a look-in.

 

We desperately need proportional representation, because our politics needs compromise and grown-up debate instead of the usual adversarial nonsense. I've also long believed that PR would lead to more parties being formed: you could end up with, from left to right, Old Labour, the Lib Dems, New Labour, One Nation Tories and Thatcherite Tories. Smaller parties like the Greens could begin to gain a foothold too. I can't see how we can just go on accepting that politicians are held in such total disregard by much of the public, and with a voting system straight out of the nineteenth century: it has to change, now.

[Ulysses]

In 19 days, the answer to that question will be Nick Clegg.

 

That may or may not be the case, but you still haven't answered the question.

 

 

And on the contrary: the Tories could have split. Had they chosen Ken Clarke as leader, I'm convinced they would've done.

 

But they didn't - was that the fault of the Liberal Democrats' leadership?

 

 

Meanwhile, I'm not sure if you do political analysis either. I stated on here that Clegg won Thursday's debate; you thought Cameron had. And what's happened to their respective parties in the polls since?

 

If you recall, my view was that Clegg had performed best but that Cameron won the debate. At the moment, it looks like this may not have been the case, but it remains to be seen if it was. Let's wait and see.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Indeed - but the Tories have been continually opposed to PR because they're terrified of a permanent centre-left coalition being the result. Think about it: there won't ever be 50% of people voting Conservative in the UK, but there are an automatic 50% who vote Labour or Lib Dem. It'd lock the Tories out completely; unless at some point there was a backlash from a public fed up with the blue rinse mob never getting a look-in.

 

We desperately need proportional representation, because our politics needs compromise and grown-up debate instead of the usual adversarial nonsense. I've also long believed that PR would lead to more parties being formed: you could end up with, from left to right, Old Labour, the Lib Dems, New Labour, One Nation Tories and Thatcherite Tories. Smaller parties like the Greens could begin to gain a foothold too. I can't see how we can just go on accepting that politicians are held in such total disregard by much of the public, and with a voting system straight out of the nineteenth century: it has to change, now.

 

 

Shaun, your premise here is that the Lib Dems are centre left.

 

You have to remember that the flakiest voters out there are Lib Dem because of the 'plague on both your houses' vote. If Clegg manages to force a hung parliament (and I feel his big test is this Thursday with the foreign affairs debate because the Lib Dems pro European stance will come under major attack), his choice of coalition partner could see an instant loss of votes, i.e. props up Labour, the soft right vote is immediately lost and vice versa.

 

PR has its pluses and minuses, having voted in PR elections. Tactical voting becomes even more crucial than it is now, because it is even harder to get rid of candidates you dislike. My very first vote was for Ballymena Borough Council in 1993. I wanted rid of my ridiculous local DUP councillor and voted tactically for the SDLP. They missed the quota by 12 votes and missed out on a seat altogether. Meanwhile, Roy Gillespie got in on the sixth count.

[Moriarty]

Shaun, your premise here is that the Lib Dems are centre left.

 

You have to remember that the flakiest voters out there are Lib Dem because of the 'plague on both your houses' vote. If Clegg manages to force a hung parliament (and I feel his big test is this Thursday with the foreign affairs debate because the Lib Dems pro European stance will come under major attack), his choice of coalition partner could see an instant loss of votes, i.e. props up Labour, the soft right vote is immediately lost and vice versa.

 

PR has its pluses and minuses, having voted in PR elections. Tactical voting becomes even more crucial than it is now, because it is even harder to get rid of candidates you dislike. My very first vote was for Ballymena Borough Council in 1993. I wanted rid of my ridiculous local DUP councillor and voted tactically for the SDLP. They missed the quota by 12 votes and missed out on a seat altogether. Meanwhile, Roy Gillespie got in on the sixth count.

 

personally I think a MMP system closer to that used in the scottish parliament and welsh assembly would be fairest. It also has its disadvantages of course but I think it is important to keep a local face rather than only have half a dozen MPs for a much larger region or similar.

[shaun.lawson]

Shaun, your premise here is that the Lib Dems are centre left.

 

You have to remember that the flakiest voters out there are Lib Dem because of the 'plague on both your houses' vote. If Clegg manages to force a hung parliament (and I feel his big test is this Thursday with the foreign affairs debate because the Lib Dems pro European stance will come under major attack), his choice of coalition partner could see an instant loss of votes, i.e. props up Labour, the soft right vote is immediately lost and vice versa.

 

PR has its pluses and minuses, having voted in PR elections. Tactical voting becomes even more crucial than it is now, because it is even harder to get rid of candidates you dislike. My very first vote was for Ballymena Borough Council in 1993. I wanted rid of my ridiculous local DUP councillor and voted tactically for the SDLP. They missed the quota by 12 votes and missed out on a seat altogether. Meanwhile, Roy Gillespie got in on the sixth count.

 

There are pluses and minuses to every system, of course - but our current system is fast running out of pluses, and will be bankrupt if the third party on share of the vote is the biggest party in terms of seats. It'll also be bankrupt if the Lib Dem surge continues, yet the public see first hand its will not being represented by share of seats.

 

As for the Lib Dems being centre-left: of course, many Lib Dems would employ the cop-out that left and right no longer exist, because the electoral system forces them to be soft Tory in some constituencies, left of Labour in others. But in general, the Lib Dems are very left wing socially (a big reason why I've always liked them); and somewhat centre left on many economic issues, centrist on others. That'll do for me.

 

The Europe point is an interesting one. The public, of course, are extremely Eurosceptic - but since 1997, this hasn't translated into support for the Tories. That's because the public wants above all to see an inclusive party which can be taken seriously on all issues, not some single issue little Englander rump; and that Europe is now far less of a priority in the concerns of much of the public (well below the economy, public services, immigration and crime) should also help Clegg on Thursday.

[Ulysses]

Shaun, your premise here is that the Lib Dems are centre left.

 

You have to remember that the flakiest voters out there are Lib Dem because of the 'plague on both your houses' vote. If Clegg manages to force a hung parliament (and I feel his big test is this Thursday with the foreign affairs debate because the Lib Dems pro European stance will come under major attack), his choice of coalition partner could see an instant loss of votes, i.e. props up Labour, the soft right vote is immediately lost and vice versa.

 

PR has its pluses and minuses, having voted in PR elections. Tactical voting becomes even more crucial than it is now, because it is even harder to get rid of candidates you dislike. My very first vote was for Ballymena Borough Council in 1993. I wanted rid of my ridiculous local DUP councillor and voted tactically for the SDLP. They missed the quota by 12 votes and missed out on a seat altogether. Meanwhile, Roy Gillespie got in on the sixth count.

 

Some of the whackjobs have found spiritual homes in the likes of UKIP, ED, RESPECT and all of that palaver.

 

But I think the Liberal Democrats will find the next debate tougher than the last one. It's not just Europe; the UK's nuclear deterrent will be a big issue as well.

 

I think the UK's electoral system is, frankly, mad. But they should think carefully before changing it.

[Moriarty]

I am looking forward to seeing how much Cameron and Brown go for Clegg in this coming debate. Especially Cameron, who is much more popular with the public as an individual celebrity than his party is. I feel the reason for this is Cameron's self imposed persona as a "nice guy", i wonder if he will be able to keep up this buddy image whilst trying to put the boot into Clegg. If he steps over the line and comes across as nasty he could turn off a lot of voters.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

There are pluses and minuses to every system, of course - but our current system is fast running out of pluses, and will be bankrupt if the third party on share of the vote is the biggest party in terms of seats. It'll also be bankrupt if the Lib Dem surge continues, yet the public see first hand its will not being represented by share of seats.

 

Wouldn't argue that. One thing is for sure though - AV would be worse! It works over here because effectively it is a two party system. Three parties blows it out of the water. It should be STV or nothing.

 

As for the Lib Dems being centre-left: of course, many Lib Dems would employ the cop-out that left and right no longer exist, because the electoral system forces them to be soft Tory in some constituencies, left of Labour in others. But in general, the Lib Dems are very left wing socially (a big reason why I've always liked them); and somewhat centre left on many economic issues, centrist on others. That'll do for me.

 

Quite, but as I say, a lot of their voters don't realise that. They benefit from the 'not Tory, not Labour' stance and can employ more faces than Janus as a result depending on where they stand. The question is whether the apathy and anger felt at both Labour and Tory is enough for the soft vote to stick with them as their policy outlook becomes more apparent.

 

The Europe point is an interesting one. The public, of course, are extremely Eurosceptic - but since 1997, this hasn't translated into support for the Tories. That's because the public wants above all to see an inclusive party which can be taken seriously on all issues, not some single issue little Englander rump; and that Europe is now far less of a priority in the concerns of much of the public (well below the economy, public services, immigration and crime) should also help Clegg on Thursday.

 

Absolutely, but the Tories can speak on a position of strength in this debate on Europe. The Lib Dems should try and focus on Iraq and move away from Europe because it is obvious the pound will not be joining the Euro for God knows how many years and that the Euro fanaticism the Libs had was totally misplaced. In fact, it is one thing Brown should claim credit for - keeping the UK out of the Euro. Otherwise, Irish style austerity would already be in place.

[shaun.lawson]

Wouldn't argue that. One thing is for sure though - AV would be worse! It works over here because effectively it is a two party system. Three parties blows it out of the water. It should be STV or nothing.

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, totally. AV would be an absolute disaster. So naturally, Gordon "Midas touch in reverse" Brown is in favour. I'm not altogether sure why either STV or AV are necessary though: and personally, favour a purely proportional system, in which if a party receives, say, 30% of the national vote, they get 30% of the MPs. The problem with this, though, is an end to the constituency link, and list systems, which I accept much of the public would hate.

[Ulysses]

There are pluses and minuses to every system, of course - but our current system is fast running out of pluses, and will be bankrupt if the third party on share of the vote is the biggest party in terms of seats.

 

The assumption by the "experts" is that there will be a uniform national swing - and it is true that a uniform swing would produce the irrational result whereby Labour would finish 3rd in the national popular vote but end up with the highest seat haul.

 

But this analysis ignores the fact that uniform national vote swings almost never happen. In 2005, there was a slight national swing from Labour to the Conservatives, and a slightly bigger swing from Labour to the Liberal Democrats. But there were wildly divergent results in constituencies. For the Conservatives, swings ranged from 9% to minus 1%. For the Liberal Democrats, swings ranged from 21% to 0%.

 

If the popular vote ended up something like CON 32 LAB 28 LIBDEM 30, it is possible that Labour could get 270 seats and be the largest party in terms of seats. But the same popular vote spread could leave Labour with 190 seats and the Tories with 280. It all depends on where the vote shifts happen.

[shaun.lawson]

The assumption by the "experts" is that there will be a uniform national swing - and it is true that a uniform swing would produce the irrational result whereby Labour would finish 3rd in the national popular vote but end up with the highest seat haul.

 

But this analysis ignores the fact that uniform national vote swings almost never happen. In 2005, there was a slight national swing from Labour to the Conservatives, and a slightly bigger swing from Labour to the Liberal Democrats. But there were wildly divergent results in constituencies. For the Conservatives, swings ranged from 9% to minus 1%. For the Liberal Democrats, swings ranged from 21% to 0%.

 

If the popular vote ended up something like CON 32 LAB 28 LIBDEM 30, it is possible that Labour could get 270 seats and be the largest party in terms of seats. But the same popular vote spread could leave Labour with 190 seats and the Tories with 280. It all depends on where the vote shifts happen.

 

True enough - have non-uniform national swings been a fairly recent phenomena? I always think back to 1992: the first election campaign I watched all the way through. When the BBC said that if David Amess held Basildon, the Tories would stay in power, I was baffled - yet that's what happened.

 

You know as well as I do that Labour aren't going to end up with 190 seats though. They didn't even fare that badly in 1983! The Lib Dems have been very effective in targeting particular seats at recent elections: the question is, will the Tories be similarly effective over more seats this time?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

True enough - have non-uniform national swings been a fairly recent phenomena? I always think back to 1992: the first election campaign I watched all the way through. When the BBC said that if David Amess held Basildon, the Tories would stay in power, I was baffled - yet that's what happened.

 

You know as well as I do that Labour aren't going to end up with 190 seats though. They didn't even fare that badly in 1983! The Lib Dems have been very effective in targeting particular seats at recent elections: the question is, will the Tories be similarly effective over more seats this time?

 

 

I would guess so - in 1997 Pantsdown ended equidistance and encouraged an anti-Tory vote. This probably led to things like the Portillo moment as much as anything else and the Tory wipeout in Scotland.

[shaun.lawson]

I would guess so - in 1997 Pantsdown ended equidistance and encouraged an anti-Tory vote. This probably led to things like the Portillo moment as much as anything else and the Tory wipeout in Scotland.

 

Indeed. I also long assumed that as the Tories recovered and increased their share of seats, the Lib Dems would be bound to drop back - but it hasn't happened, and Thursday's debate could prove a game-changer for everyone. Many times, I've wondered quite what the point of the Lib Dems working so hard to pick up a handful of seats at each election was; but the big picture's always been electoral reform, and it's homing into view now.

[Ulysses]

True enough - have non-uniform national swings been a fairly recent phenomena? I always think back to 1992: the first election campaign I watched all the way through. When the BBC said that if David Amess held Basildon, the Tories would stay in power, I was baffled - yet that's what happened.

 

Recent enough, I think. The big change factor has been the performance of the Liberal Democrats since 1997, both in terms of votes and seats.

 

 

You know as well as I do that Labour aren't going to end up with 190 seats though. They didn't even fare that badly in 1983! The Lib Dems have been very effective in targeting particular seats at recent elections: the question is, will the Tories be similarly effective over more seats this time?

 

I reckon they won't. 1983 isn't a reasonable comparison, because Labour didn't finish 3rd. The point I'm making is that while the "uniform swing" pundits are saying 270 (or thereabouts), that would actually represent the maximum seat haul for Labour. In reality, the kind of vote spread we're talking about here would leave the Conservatives as the largest party.

 

Which still doesn't make the system proportional, of course.

[Gorgiewave]

Question: Does anybody know how the queen choses which person to invite to form a government? Is it automatically the leader of the party with most seats? Could the Conservatives win the most seats but form the loyal opposition to a Lab/Lib coalition?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Question: Does anybody know how the queen choses which person to invite to form a government? Is it automatically the leader of the party with most seats? Could the Conservatives win the most seats but form the loyal opposition to a Lab/Lib coalition?

 

 

Brown actually stays as PM until he informs the Queen he is resigning and nominates someone else as PM. By convention, this is the leader of the largest party.

[Gorgiewave]

Brown actually stays as PM until he informs the Queen he is resigning and nominates someone else as PM. By convention, this is the leader of the largest party.

 

Thanks. So the leader of the largest party will be PM unless there is serious jiggery-pokery.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Thanks. So the leader of the largest party will be PM unless there is serious jiggery-pokery.

 

 

Well it depends.

 

The first election in 1974 saw Head Teeth win the popular vote but less seats (Wilson won 4 more). Heath tried to form a coalition with Jeremy Thorpe but couldn't. Then Wilson formed a minority government.

[Gorgiewave]

Well it depends.

 

The first election in 1974 saw Head Teeth win the popular vote but less seats (Wilson won 4 more). Heath tried to form a coalition with Jeremy Thorpe but couldn't. Then Wilson formed a minority government.

 

So Heath didn't resign, waiting to see if he could form a majority government?

 

I'm just saying, because if the Tories get a majority of seats overall and the most voters in England, but are excluded from the government, faith in democracy os going to be further eroded.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

So Heath didn't resign, waiting to see if he could form a majority government?

 

I'm just saying, because if the Tories get a majority of seats overall and the most voters in England, but are excluded from the government, faith in democracy os going to be further eroded.

 

 

What's really needed is a government of national unity to face up to the economic disaster caused by the large deficit. None of them, even honest Nick, is ready to speak the unpalatable truth of what lies ahead. However, that won't happen.

[Glamorgan Jambo]

I'm talking 2001 to 2003 here, when IDS was Tory leader and many pundits spoke seriously about his party dying out completely. What did the Lib Dems do? Nothing. Why is Clegg now making such an astounding impact when neither Kennedy nor Campbell did?

 

Kennedy was effective up to a point because the public didn't take him seriously. Campbell was like a deer in the headlights as leader: he honestly looked like he sucked on a Fisherman's Friend whenever he spoke, and like many other politicians, was only effective when commenting from the outside. In the heat of the crucible, he simply melted down.

 

Meanwhile, poll after poll are telling an astonishing story. All three parties are incredibly close together, and the Lib Dems have all the momentum. For months now, it's felt to me like the Tories couldn't win, and I couldn't quite understand how they were so far clear in the polls. Huge numbers of people I've chatted with who've never voted Lib Dem before are about to do so now - and what it all translates to is the prospect of Labour - even if they finish 3rd on share of the vote, for heavens sake - being the largest party; Cameron and the Tories doing terribly given their expectations before the campaign; and a Labour/Lib Dem coalition government in which a move to proportional representation for Westminster becomes irresistible. And all because the Lib Dems have a hugely popular, impressive economics spokesman, and a leader the public are actually taking seriously.

 

 

Kennedy became leader in 1999 IIRC

 

Lib Dem results in the last 3 elections (ref Wikipedia)

 

1997 16.7% votes cast, 46 seats

2001 18.3% votes, 52 seats

2005 22.1% votes, 62 seats

 

Kennedy increased the Lib Dem vote by ca 30% and number of seats by close to 40%. Truly an amazing result for someone you dismiss as not being taken seriously. IIRC Campbell won a by election n his short spell in charge.

 

Clegg (the ex Tory as you didn't answer that part of my question) has managed to do well in a televised debate so far. Lets see how things go in the next few weeks when Cleggs profile moves beyond the basic recognition he got from last weeks debate. Oh and Vince Cable may be popular with some but I nns mny others don't take him too seriously.

2001

2005

[Ulysses]

Kennedy increased the Lib Dem vote by ca 30% and number of seats by close to 40%. Truly an amazing result for someone you dismiss as not being taken seriously.

 

Those facts you quote are all fine and dandy, but they're only useful if you want to engage in rational political analysis.

 

Do you have any alternative facts that could be used for a more emotional way of looking at things?

[Glamorgan Jambo]

Those facts you quote are all fine and dandy, but they're only useful if you want to engage in rational political analysis.

 

Do you have any alternative facts that could be used for a more emotional way of looking at things?

 

Oh right. Do you mean something like;

 

The fact that Nick Clegg had the self confidence to stand with his hands in his pockets during a national televised debate shows that he has the stature and coolness under pressure to handle any crisis.

[Moriarty]

Oh right. Do you mean something like;

 

The fact that Nick Clegg had the self confidence to stand with his hands in his pockets during a national televised debate shows that he has the stature and coolness under pressure to handle any crisis.

 

 

 

[Ulysses]

Oh right. Do you mean something like;

 

The fact that Nick Clegg had the self confidence to stand with his hands in his pockets during a national televised debate shows that he has the stature and coolness under pressure to handle any crisis.

 

That's more like it.

 

Let's change the world. We can do it.

[Private Hudson]

That's more like it.

 

Let's change the world. We can do it.

 

Self-congratulatory cynicism. That'll save us.

[Moriarty]

http://today.yougov.co.uk/politics/latest-voting-intention-18-april

 

LibDems: 33%

Conservatives: 32%

Labour: 26%

 

[Patrick Bateman]

http://today.yougov.co.uk/politics/latest-voting-intention-18-april

 

LibDems: 33%

Conservatives: 32%

Labour: 26%

 

 

Again, I wonder how many Scottish voters made a decision based on what Clegg said about education, policing and the NHS etc, given that they are all devolved matters and he is not allowed to interfere/comment/influence matters at Holyrood. I've noticed a number of Scottish/North Brit parties talk about matters which are devolved to the Scottish parliament. It seems the British mentality hasn't quite adapted to the partial self-determination granted by the Scottish Parliament. It is completely misleading to raise devolved issues in a Westminster election and if the electoral commission was in any way balanced, they would put a stop to this. Such a sharp rise in opinion polls also indictates how fickle/ shallow a great deal of the electorate are. No surprises there, then.

[2NaFish]

Such a sharp rise in opinion polls also indictates how fickle/ shallow a great deal of the electorate are. No surprises there, then.

 

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

 

Still a long, long way to go. With seemingly 3 or 4 polls released daily i'd like to see any poll results in the week running up to any election be outlawed; just to keep the politicians on their toes.

[Ossory_Jambo]

Again, I wonder how many Scottish voters made a decision based on what Clegg said about education, policing and the NHS etc, given that they are all devolved matters and he is not allowed to interfere/comment/influence matters at Holyrood. I've noticed a number of Scottish/North Brit parties talk about matters which are devolved to the Scottish parliament. It seems the British mentality hasn't quite adapted to the partial self-determination granted by the Scottish Parliament. It is completely misleading to raise devolved issues in a Westminster election and if the electoral commission was in any way balanced, they would put a stop to this. Such a sharp rise in opinion polls also indictates how fickle/ shallow a great deal of the electorate are. No surprises there, then.

 

Agreed, the whole idea of 'the Great Debate' exercise is a stagemanaged undemocratic sham, a political stitch-up contrived by a cosy Westminster cabal of politicians and broadcasters. It is an absolute scandal that these debates are allowed to be broadcast in Scotland in the format that they are, the Scottish electorate are being shafted once again.

[Big D]

Clegg's Party, and it is now, are an extraordinary entity. He gets invited on debates about a job he won't possibly be allowed to do. He heads a Unionist party which promotes diametrically opposite policies for different parts of the U.K.; and his chiels in Scotland now claim they are "Leading the fight against Labour in Scotland". A Party they propped up in Holyrood for 10 years, and are discussing coalition terms with, in London. What an odious bunch of opportunistic liars.

[Boris]

Brown actually stays as PM until he informs the Queen he is resigning and nominates someone else as PM. By convention, this is the leader of the largest party.

 

 

Thanks. So the leader of the largest party will be PM unless there is serious jiggery-pokery.

 

 

So Heath didn't resign, waiting to see if he could form a majority government?

 

I'm just saying, because if the Tories get a majority of seats overall and the most voters in England, but are excluded from the government, faith in democracy os going to be further eroded.

 

I think when there is a hung parliament, regardless of the state of the parties, the incumbent Pm gets first dibs on forming a Govt. That is the convention.

[kitster]

I think when there is a hung parliament, regardless of the state of the parties, the incumbent Pm gets first dibs on forming a Govt. That is the convention.

 

Wonderful. So not only are the odds stacked high we'll get him back again due to the voting system, even when it's hung he'll control it anyway? Neither wonder people turn off politics.

[Boris]

Wonderful. So not only are the odds stacked high we'll get him back again due to the voting system, even when it's hung he'll control it anyway? Neither wonder people turn off politics.

 

Well no, not necessarily.

 

Say Brown tries to form a coalition with Clegg but fails? Then Cameron would try his luck to form a coalition. Should this fail even Brown wouldn't have the audacity to try to form a severely minor minority Govt.

 

The largest party would probably run as a minority (similar to the situation we have at Holyrood) but given the gladitorial politics of Westminster this wouldn't last long.

 

So we would end up with another election.

 

Personally, I would imagine that in the event of a hung parliament then we would see a Lib/Lab coalition. Then some electoral reform and new elections based on the new system.

 

A new dawn for British politics.

[Gorgiewave]

Wonderful. So not only are the odds stacked high we'll get him back again due to the voting system, even when it's hung he'll control it anyway? Neither wonder people turn off politics.

 

 

I love this expression.

 

Only Scots!

[Moriarty]

Personally, I would imagine that in the event of a hung parliament then we would see a Lib/Lab coalition. Then some electoral reform and new elections based on the new system.

 

A new dawn for British politics.

 

 

thats the dream.

[kitster]

Well no, not necessarily.

 

Say Brown tries to form a coalition with Clegg but fails? Then Cameron would try his luck to form a coalition. Should this fail even Brown wouldn't have the audacity to try to form a severely minor minority Govt.

 

The largest party would probably run as a minority (similar to the situation we have at Holyrood) but given the gladitorial politics of Westminster this wouldn't last long.

 

So we would end up with another election.

 

Personally, I would imagine that in the event of a hung parliament then we would see a Lib/Lab coalition. Then some electoral reform and new elections based on the new system.

 

A new dawn for British politics.

 

gosh I've just heard Mrs Goldie compare him to a Clegg bite..that's desperate politics at its worst. It's not allowed to last long anyway Boris if it should happen. For some reason we seem to need ultimate power in this country when it serves the country worst in my opinion. Most other European countries work under that sphere. They need to bury the petty squabbles and get on for the best of policy making..that would be surely be better than what we have now.

[Ossory_Jambo]

gosh I've just heard Mrs Goldie compare him to a Clegg bite..that's desperate politics at its worst. It's not allowed to last long anyway Boris if it should happen. For some reason we seem to need ultimate power in this country when it serves the country worst in my opinion. Most other European countries work under that sphere. They need to bury the petty squabbles and get on for the best of policy making..that would be surely be better than what we have now.

 

Dream on, it will never happen in the Westminster system, because it is rotten to the core. This flirtation that the media have with Clegg at the moment will subside as polling day approaches, leaving us with the same Yin and Yang politics that we've always had.

[Boris]

gosh I've just heard Mrs Goldie compare him to a Clegg bite..that's desperate politics at its worst. It's not allowed to last long anyway Boris if it should happen. For some reason we seem to need ultimate power in this country when it serves the country worst in my opinion. Most other European countries work under that sphere. They need to bury the petty squabbles and get on for the best of policy making..that would be surely be better than what we have now.

 

 

If it is a Lib/Lab coalition in the evnt of a hung parliament then there will be electoral reform. Voter apathy in recent years is symptomatic of the see-saw politics in this country.

 

I noticed Clegg in the first debate openely courting both Cameron and Brown to sit round a table and discuss the "big" issues that affect everyone. Quite shrewd I thought.

[redm]

Stuck on a train tonight so if any kind person is planning on enduring tonight's debate, updates would be most gratefully received.

 

Doesn't even have to be political, the colour of ties, silly expressions, gaffes and amount of perspiration on brows will do.

[kitster]

Stuck on a train tonight so if any kind person is planning on enduring tonight's debate, updates would be most gratefully received.

 

Doesn't even have to be political, the colour of ties, silly expressions, gaffes and amount of perspiration on brows will do.

 

 

Dave is wearing a purple tie, Clegg sticks to his party colours again and Brown is brazen red instead of pink this week! That's according to BBC text updates anyway.

[Patrick Bateman]

A new dawn for British politics.

 

 

Boris, I don't think Britain has ever shown an interest in facilitating an accurate representation of the population so I don't think it's reasonable to think anything will seriously change. The system was created and designed to rule an Empire, and if an objective, accurate assessment was made, I think it would be concluded that its had its day. All these parties will bang on about empowering local people and communities, yet they all colluded to block a referendum on independence. The level of hypocrisy here is searing.

[JennyJambo]

Dave talks a lot, Nick looks very relaxed in front of a camera and Gordon looks more relaxed than last time round.

 

Lee..

 

Dave says Europe have too much power

Nick says...I dunno I was busy looking at how cool he looks

Gordon says 3 million jobs rely on our Euro ties and we're a big voice so should stay involved