Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

1929crash

Icm Poll Shows Clegg Will Lose His Sheffield Hallam Seat

Recommended Posts

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/nick-clegg-and-lib-dems-face-battle-for-survival

The electoral oblivion apparently confronting the Liberal Democrats as led by Nick Clegg was underscored on Monday by leaked opinion polls in four seats showing that the party will be wiped out.

Commissioned by a Lib Dem supporter from ICM and subsequently passed to the Guardian, the polling indicates that the Lib Dem leader would forfeit his own Sheffield Hallam constituency at the next election.

The party would also lose its seats in in Cambridge, Redcar and Wells, costing MPs Julian Huppert, Ian Swales and Tessa Munt Westminster seats.

If the business secretary, Vince Cable, were to take over as leader, the Lib Dems would perform marginally better, the data suggests. Appointing Danny Alexander, the chief secretary, would give the party a more modest boost.

This is a really interesting poll which might just wake up the Lib Dems to the prospect they face next year. It's quite clear from reading the debate at the Lib Dem members' site http://www.libdemvoice.org that the Lib Dems think they are going to get 40-odd seats at next year's General Election.

I'm getting down to work on a book - provisional title "Were you still up for Clegg?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was skeptical at first of the projected fall in the libdem vote given all they did was lie, like labour and tory have been doing for 100 odd years, but the fall in the libdem vote hasnt disappointed in each and every election so far.

Locally in Cambridge, its a shame Huppert will lose given liebour are guaranteed to win. He is a twat, but the liebour candidate is an odious serial liar prize twat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this matter? Surely post-election he will be off to some lucrative QUANGO job with a handful of City banking directorships thrown in for good luck.

I think Cameron will reward him with either:

1. European Commissioner.

2. Ambassador to the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was skeptical at first of the projected fall in the libdem vote given all they did was lie, like labour and tory have been doing for 100 odd years, but the fall in the libdem vote hasnt disappointed in each and every election so far.

Locally in Cambridge, its a shame Huppert will lose given liebour are guaranteed to win. He is a twat, but the liebour candidate is an odious serial liar prize twat.

It may be simply that lib dem voters are more naive in believing the lib dems than LIEbour and CONservative voters. :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this matter? Surely post-election he will be off to some lucrative QUANGO job with a handful of City banking directorships thrown in for good luck.

I think Cameron will reward him with either:

1. European Commissioner.

2. Ambassador to the US.

3. Fluffer...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Fluffer...

Actually, that's not a bad description of what Clegg has done with the Tories since 2010 - enabled the political erection of savagely unpopular policies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It may be simply that lib dem voters are more naive in believing the lib dems than LIEbour and CONservative voters. :blink:

An important point I think. The primary libdem 'base' is the student population, who tend to be idealistic. The reality was both labour and tory, over 50% of the vote, both were going to raise tuition fees, either via top ups, or the graduate tax. Democratically, maintaining the status quo was never going to happen. Not that the typical ideologue student is pragmatic enough to see it that way.

The secondary 'base' is the protest vote...inevitably once they become the government, they are the 'establishment' and that vote goes elsewhere. I suspect if ever UKIP were in the same position a similar scenario would ensue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This will give me something to stay up for on election night next year. Ed Balls or more pertinently his constituents failed to deliver last time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An important point I think. The primary libdem 'base' is the student population, who tend to be idealistic. The reality was both labour and tory, over 50% of the vote, both were going to raise tuition fees, either via top ups, or the graduate tax. Democratically, maintaining the status quo was never going to happen. Not that the typical ideologue student is pragmatic enough to see it that way.

The secondary 'base' is the protest vote...inevitably once they become the government, they are the 'establishment' and that vote goes elsewhere. I suspect if ever UKIP were in the same position a similar scenario would ensue.

My local MP David Laws told some whoppers, where he got £40k's worth of housing benefit for which he wasn't entitled to, has done it for me (the student thing certainly hasn't helped)...most ordinary people would probably be locked up for what he did, but all he had to say "oooh, sorry"...Nobody gives a monkeys whether he's gay (apparently the main reason why he lied)...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of pressure on the three party leaders all of a sudden.

They don't like it up 'em.

And in all three cases for basically the same reason: they've all been hugely complacent and assumed that if they kept serving up the same old Westminster consensus policies with a tiny red/blue/yellow garnish on the side then voters would be obliged to vote for one of them. After all, it's a three party system and anything else is a "protest vote". None of them believe that anything is fundamentally wrong with the UK's political or economic systems and they all think that to win a general election all you need to do is to convince voters that you will be the most competent at maintaining the status quo. The idea that a large and growing segment of the population is legitimately angry at the status quo and wants politicians to put forward alternative visions of the future is completely alien to people like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband who are born and bred insiders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And in all three cases for basically the same reason: they've all been hugely complacent and assumed that if they kept serving up the same old Westminster consensus policies with a tiny red/blue/yellow garnish on the side then voters would be obliged to vote for one of them. After all, it's a three party system and anything else is a "protest vote". None of them believe that anything is fundamentally wrong with the UK's political or economic systems and they all think that to win a general election all you need to do is to convince voters that you will be the most competent at maintaining the status quo. The idea that a large and growing segment of the population is legitimately angry at the status quo and wants politicians to put forward alternative visions of the future is completely alien to people like Cameron, Clegg and Miliband who are born and bred insiders.

They have been doing this for years knowing that any disgruntled free-thinking voters either do not vote, or spoil their ballot papers or vote for one of a myriad of independents.

In other words, it has played into the hands of the main parties for decades.

People have been saying for years that there should be a place on the ballot paper where you can vote 'none of the above' but that, again, just plays into the hands of main political parties.

In fact, I am amazed that the politicians have not gone for that option as in the safe Labour, Liberal and Tory seats it means that even if something like 90% of people vote 'none of the above' the minority of lemmings who vote Tory or Labour or Liberal everytime would still vote their party into power in their respective safe seats.

This is why UKIP has become a game changer. If UKIP had any sense now they would try and broaden their appeal as a national issue party but I suspect they will simply focus on the EU issues and appeal mainly still to disgruntled Tory voters.

Then again, there clearly was a massive swing of Labour voters to UKIP in Wales with, even though Labour still got several hundred thousand votes, UKIP coming very close to being the top voted for party. Amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, that's not a bad description of what Clegg has done with the Tories since 2010 - enabled the political erection of savagely unpopular policies.

It looks like our system dooms us to two-party politics forever then. Any third party that grows strong enough to hold the balance of power and force a coalition will inevitably become the whipping boy for the larger party and be slaughtered at the next election. After seeing what's happened to the LibDems, any other small party would have to be bonkers to even consider entering into a coalition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like our system dooms us to two-party politics forever then. Any third party that grows strong enough to hold the balance of power and force a coalition will inevitably become the whipping boy for the larger party and be slaughtered at the next election. After seeing what's happened to the LibDems, any other small party would have to be bonkers to even consider entering into a coalition.

Coalition is not a bad idea in itself.

However, the Lib Dems entered a coalition which unnecessarily entailed them reneging on a solemn pledge not to increase tuition fees and to implement an austerity policy they had previously eschewed.

But far worse than that is that they have gone beyond the coalition agreement on so many issues and just sucked up to the Tories. There was nothing in the coalition agreement that committed them to the semi-privatisation of the NHS in England, or to the gagging law, the ditching of a recall of MPs mechanism, or to not get rid of secret courts etc etc etc etc but they backed these measures anyway.

Further Clegg is such a useless leader that it appears the Lib Dems have carried all the odium for this dreadful government, while Cameron has got off lightly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would have happened if the tories setup a minority govt? I wonder how long it would have lasted for...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what would have happened if the tories setup a minority govt? I wonder how long it would have lasted for...

Interesting question but I suspect the answer is longer than many think, since there is absolutely no evidence that the Tories would have won an outright majority in a second general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting question but I suspect the answer is longer than many think, since there is absolutely no evidence that the Tories would have won an outright majority in a second general election.

& end up like Belgium?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like our system dooms us to two-party politics forever then. Any third party that grows strong enough to hold the balance of power and force a coalition will inevitably become the whipping boy for the larger party and be slaughtered at the next election. After seeing what's happened to the LibDems, any other small party would have to be bonkers to even consider entering into a coalition.

An interesting contrast to this is the two 2012 elections in Greece, where Alexis Tsipras' newcomer youth-led anti-austerity party Syriza refused to go into coalition with the Greek equivalents of Labour (PASOK) and the Conservatives (New Democracy) despite being in a position to act as kingmaker because it didn't want to support a pro-Troika government. In the end New Democracy and PASOK went into coalition together, showing that these two "opposing" parties weren't actually so far apart after all. I wouldn't be too surprised to see a Lab-Con coalition in Westminster before this is all over, it would be a logical last gasp to what Clegg, Cameron and Miliband would no doubt call "mainstream politics".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting contrast to this is the two 2012 elections in Greece, where Alexis Tsipras' newcomer youth-led anti-austerity party Syriza refused to go into coalition with the Greek equivalents of Labour (PASOK) and the Conservatives (New Democracy) despite being in a position to act as kingmaker because it didn't want to support a pro-Troika government. In the end New Democracy and PASOK went into coalition together, showing that these two "opposing" parties weren't actually so far apart after all. I wouldn't be too surprised to see a Lab-Con coalition in Westminster before this is all over, it would be a logical last gasp to what Clegg, Cameron and Miliband would no doubt call "mainstream politics".

"Grand" coalitions of this kind are not at all unusual in other countries; Germany, for example, has one at the moment. What allows this, I think, is that their system allows the smaller parties to also become relatively powerful and be in a position to offer robust opposition to a grand coalition. The smaller coalition partner still usually suffers though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like our system dooms us to two-party politics forever then. Any third party that grows strong enough to hold the balance of power and force a coalition will inevitably become the whipping boy for the larger party and be slaughtered at the next election. After seeing what's happened to the LibDems, any other small party would have to be bonkers to even consider entering into a coalition.

They shot themselves in the foot by making promises in the form "we will vote against x". Given the likelihood of a hung parliament they should have made clear that they would need to negotiate to get the best deal from their perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Grand" coalitions of this kind are not at all unusual in other countries; Germany, for example, has one at the moment. What allows this, I think, is that their system allows the smaller parties to also become relatively powerful and be in a position to offer robust opposition to a grand coalition. The smaller coalition partner still usually suffers though.

Okay, but that's all the more reason for a third party which fundamentally disagrees with the main two to stay out of coalition and build up its case for being elected as a future alternative government. Seems to be working for Syriza so far.

The problem for the Lib Dems is that they overlap completely with Labour and the Conservatives ideologically so they could hardly claim to be incompatible with them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever I go to Belgium I see a propserous country where people are happy.

That's because you can't see the kids locked up in the basements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay, but that's all the more reason for a third party which fundamentally disagrees with the main two to stay out of coalition and build up its case for being elected as a future alternative government. Seems to be working for Syriza so far.

The problem for the Lib Dems is that they overlap completely with Labour and the Conservatives ideologically so they could hardly claim to be incompatible with them.

Amongst other things, I favour close cooperation with neighbouring countries in dealing with economic and environmental issues, a shift in taxation from income towards consumption, and a liberal social policy. So, for me, the LibDems are by far the least worst option in terms of policy. Of the three, they're also the ones most receptive to ideas such as LVT and citizens' income.

Policywise, as far as I can see, UKIP is simply ultra-conservative. While people may warm to their anti-EU and anti-immigration stance in the euros, I can't see that many people voting in a general election for a party that wants to drastically cut taxes for the rich, nationalise the NHS, cut environmental legislation, legalise hand guns and the like. We're not Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because you can't see the kids locked up in the basements.

That's true, but I suspect that sad state of affairs has little to do with Belgium having a fragmented party system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   224 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.