Jeremy Corbyn

[JawKnee]

zarjaz1991 said:

They got many of their flagship manifesto committments through, and they reigned in the worst Tory excesses.

Apart from a referendum on AV what exactly did they get? The Lib Dems were utterly humiliated in Government from what I remember. Too scared to stand up to the Tories or seemingly just happy to go along for the ride. Either way, it's no surprise their vote share has since fallen through the floor. And before anyone brings up the obvious, I think they have suffered a great deal more than Labour are currently projected to. That's a party with real existential issues.

[VolvoT5]

zarjaz1991 said:

I've long felt this about the Lib Dems.

Look behind the hyped media headlines and the Lib Dems did a pretty decent job in government. They got many of their flagship manifesto committments through, and they reigned in the worst Tory excesses.

Nick Clegg made one horrendous mistake, and that was over tuition fees. He should have just said "we'd love to stick to this, but the reality is we're in a coalition and there have to be compromises'. Instead he stuck to his guns, only to then completely u-turn, and I think he got punished for that.
.

I think the issue is they were promising to abolish fees altogether but then did a total U turn and increased them. He might have got away with just saying "well we are in coalition, we can't abolish fees but we won't increase them.". Also their total sell out on electoral reform was a big deal. They campaigned on PR but then sold out for AV and even worse they allowed the Conservatives to stitch them up during the referendum campaign so even AV wasn't delievered. Two huge failures in terms of key Lib Dem policy promises.

[Johnnytheboy]

JawKnee said:

Apart from a referendum on AV what exactly did they get? The Lib Dems were utterly humiliated in Government from what I remember. Too scared to stand up to the Tories or seemingly just happy to go along for the ride. Either way, it's no surprise their vote share has since fallen through the floor. And before anyone brings up the obvious, I think they have suffered a great deal more than Labour are currently projected to. That's a party with real existential issues.

They were a minor partner in a coalition; they were never going to get much. They were the driver behind raising the personal allowance, a policy I thoroughly approved of.

As above, the problem was their supporters were either not voting for a party in the hope that they would get into government (like, I assume, Corbyn's supporters?), or not aware of the fact that you can't be in a coalition and carry your whole manifesto forward.

[johnxjsc1985]

The Union's getting behind Corbyn no st. SO I wonder what the Unions would want if Corbyn ever becomes PM.

[zarjaz1991]

VolvoT5 said:

I think the issue is they were promising to abolish fees altogether but then did a total U turn and increased them. He might have got away with just saying "well we are in coalition, we can't abolish fees but we won't increase them.". Also their total sell out on electoral reform was a big deal. They campaigned on PR but then sold out for AV and even worse they allowed the Conservatives to stitch them up during the referendum campaign so even AV wasn't delievered. Two huge failures in terms of key Lib Dem policy promises.

As others have stated, they were in a coalition. Once they went into coalition I knew they couldn't possibly deliver in every single manifesto pledge. I fully expected them to just capitulate and enjoy the trappings of power, but actually they fought quite well to get a lot of their stuff through. The AV vote was an obvious compromise, but that's ok because coalition is all about compromise. The Tories couldn't do everything they wanted to either.

It worked well, but Clegg made one major blunder and the media used it to destroy both him and his party. The Lib Dem annihilation in 2015 was not what they deserved for their successful work in government.

Clegg was a good leader who took the party forward and became very well known and respected (remember "Cleggmania"?) Now, it's "Tim who?". A great shame and not the outcome they merited.

[anonymous-user]

Of more fundamental importance was the Liberals getting into bed with the Tories. That's enough for a lot of voters not to forgive them.

[Johnnytheboy]

janesmith1950 said:

Of more fundamental importance was the Liberals getting into bed with the Tories. That's enough for a lot of voters not to forgive them.

I refer you to my point a few posts above.

If you are a regular Lib Dem voter you know the best they can hope for is to be minor partner in a coalition.

A lot of said regular voters apparently felt great distaste at their party combining with the Tories in government.

Which leaves the only option - assuming you want your vote to result in them getting in to power - of a coalition with Labour.

So why not just vote Labour in the first place?

Obviously this applies in 2010 when Labour were a serious political party, as opposed to where they are now

[zarjaz1991]

janesmith1950 said:

Of more fundamental importance was the Liberals getting into bed with the Tories. That's enough for a lot of voters not to forgive them.

Which would be silly.

How can you hope to deliver on any of your manifesto committments, if you're not prepared to attempt a coalition with a major party?

Clegg was mature and insightful enough to recognise that, whilst the Lib Dems may have aligned more closely with Labour, the clear message from the 2010 result was that the public did not want Gordon Brown as Prime Minister. Clegg, rather than doing what the Labour Party now seem to want to do and just be a 'perpetual opposition', a party of protest, actually wanted to seize he opportunity to get into government and try and get his party's policies implemented.

It was a risk he was right to take, and one that was mostly successful. And yet, the public have destroyed him and his party electorally. I think that it is a huge pity and a very harsh judgement on a party and a leader who was prepared to take great political risks to push forward polices they actually believed in.

[JawKnee]

zarjaz1991 said:

VolvoT5 said:

I think the issue is they were promising to abolish fees altogether but then did a total U turn and increased them. He might have got away with just saying "well we are in coalition, we can't abolish fees but we won't increase them.". Also their total sell out on electoral reform was a big deal. They campaigned on PR but then sold out for AV and even worse they allowed the Conservatives to stitch them up during the referendum campaign so even AV wasn't delievered. Two huge failures in terms of key Lib Dem policy promises.

As others have stated, they were in a coalition. I voted Lib Dem in 2010, but once they went into coalition I knew they couldn't possibly deliver in every single manifesto pledge. I fully expected them to just capitulate and enjoy the trappings of power, but actually they fought quite well to get a lot of their stuff through. The AV vote was an obvious compromise, but that's ok because coalition is all about compromise. The Tories couldn't do everything they wanted to either.

It worked well, but Clegg made one major blunder and the media used it to destroy both him and his party. The Lib Dem annihilation in 2015 was not what they deserved for their successful work in government.

Clegg was a good leader who took the party forward and became very well known and respected (remember "Cleggmania"?) Now, it's "Tim who?". A great shame and not the outcome they merited.

Blinkered, deluded Lib Dem voter who thinks his party are capable of winning an election. Sorry, couldn't resist.

But seriously, I'm curious to what the Lib Dems got through and what they stopped the Tories from doing. My gut tells me it was "not an awful lot" on both counts but happy to be proved wrong.

[technodup]

JawKnee said:

But seriously, I'm curious to what the Lib Dems got through and what they stopped the Tories from doing. My gut tells me it was "not an awful lot" on both counts but happy to be proved wrong.

Off the top of my head...

They got their AV referendum.
They prevented boundary reform.
They got their raise in personal allowance.
They had Nick Clegg lording it as DPM for a few years.

That's plenty for a minor partner to be fair.

[anonymous-user]

zarjaz1991 said:

It was a risk he was right to take, and one that was mostly successful.

Clearly it wasn't, as it obliterated his party and forfeited any chance of influencing government into the foreseeable future, in addition to ending his own political career.

The ideological chasms between Tory and Liberal voters can be a bridge too far. Had the Liberals tallied in with Labour I doubt they'd have dropped into the abyss quite as they did.

[zarjaz1991]

janesmith1950 said:

Clearly it wasn't, as it obliterated his party and forfeited any chance of influencing government into the foreseeable future, in addition to ending his own political career.

The ideological chasms between Tory and Liberal voters can be a bridge too far. Had the Liberals tallied in with Labour I doubt they'd have dropped into the abyss quite as they did.

It was successful in terms of what was achieved in that parliament.

As I said earlier, they didn't go into coalition with Labour because the ublic did not want Gordon Brown sticking around as Prime Minister. I'm pretty sure Clegg later confirmed this was their thinking.

[anonymous-user]

zarjaz1991 said:

It was successful in terms of what was achieved in that parliament.

For whom?

[Johnnytheboy]

janesmith1950 said:

The ideological chasms between Tory and Liberal voters can be a bridge too far. Had the Liberals tallied in with Labour I doubt they'd have dropped into the abyss quite as they did.

So, again, why vote Lib Dem if all you want is a government led by Labour?

[Hosenbugler]

janesmith1950 said:

zarjaz1991 said:

It was successful in terms of what was achieved in that parliament.

For whom?

The electorate, and the country as a whole. Clegg and co helped give responsible government when it was most needed. Labour had done what they always have, wreaked havoc by fiscal idiocy.

I don't agee much with the LD's, but they are far preferable to the nasty spiteful Labour party.

[anonymous-user]

Johnnytheboy said:

So, again, why vote Lib Dem if all you want is a government led by Labour?

How does voting Lib Dem bring you to the conclusion the voter wants a Labour government? That isn't what was said.

What was said, is Liberal Voters would find it less abhorrent, if their party, faced with a choice of parties to saddle up to, chose Labour ahead of the Tories. Faced with the choice, Clegg may have had the best of intentions, however in the eyes of his supporters, he sold out, by cosying up to a party ideologically at odds with the Lib supporters.

The policy capitulations were symptoms of the sell-out and crystalised the worry.

It would be like Corbyn joining up with Blair and then agreeing to tax cuts for the rich and benefit cuts for the poor.

[Johnnytheboy]

janesmith1950 said:

Johnnytheboy said:

So, again, why vote Lib Dem if all you want is a government led by Labour?

How does voting Lib Dem bring you to the conclusion the voter wants a Labour government? That isn't what was said.

Let's go through it again.

It is reasonable to assume your highest wish as a Lib Dem voter is that your party will enter into a coalition.

It appears most Lib Dem voters don't like the Tories much, indeed their mass desertion of their party in 2015 is some proof of this.

Therefore, the only remaining party with a shot of leading a coalition they want theirs to be in league with is Labour.

If this isn't the case, then what on Earth do they want?

[JawKnee]

Wow. Thousands turn out in the pouring rain to support Corbyn. Can't think of any other political figure in the country who could elicit the same response.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...

[Andy Zarse]

JawKnee said:

Wow. Thousands turn out in the pouring rain to support Corbyn. Can't think of any other political figure in the country who could elicit the same response.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...

I can't think of another one who would possibly want to. What's the point of it? Blair never did this, nor Thatcher. Its electorally pointless.

[chris watton]

JawKnee said:

Wow. Thousands turn out in the pouring rain to support Corbyn. Can't think of any other political figure in the country who could elicit the same response.

http://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news...

Perhaps you need a trip to Venezuela to check out Corbyn's end game of his particular brand of socialism - he and his small band of sycophants were praising that country not too long ago.

You should really check it out - a true socialist utopia!