The PH exit poll
Poll: The PH exit poll
Total Members Polled: 1181
Discussion
trashbat said:
Pebbles167 said:
Yes it was. Despite not voting Lib Dem I've always liked clegg, and think it's a shame they are losing him.
Really?The man's abridged legacy, on the face of it, is that he was elected on the basis of promises like opposing higher tuition fees, and then shortly after, personally voted for the direct opposite of that apparently in order to get a party-serving vote on the b
ks that was AV, which he then lost anyway but in doing so put any discussion of electoral reform to bed for who knows how long. All of which ultimately culminated in the near destruction of his party in the ballot, and to the extent that it even matters, further damaging the breadth of British democratic choice. That's to say nothing of their lacklustre coalition merely benefiting the Tories by obfuscating the government's accountability for the last five years.I'd hope he gets run over by a tram but death is too good for the man.
berlintaxi said:
trashbat said:
Pebbles167 said:
Yes it was. Despite not voting Lib Dem I've always liked clegg, and think it's a shame they are losing him.
Really?The man's abridged legacy, on the face of it, is that he was elected on the basis of promises like opposing higher tuition fees, and then shortly after, personally voted for the direct opposite of that apparently in order to get a party-serving vote on the b
ks that was AV, which he then lost anyway but in doing so put any discussion of electoral reform to bed for who knows how long. All of which ultimately culminated in the near destruction of his party in the ballot, and to the extent that it even matters, further damaging the breadth of British democratic choice. That's to say nothing of their lacklustre coalition merely benefiting the Tories by obfuscating the government's accountability for the last five years.I'd hope he gets run over by a tram but death is too good for the man.
We are not used to coalition politics in this country, and your comments really underline the failure here to understand the principles.
Nick Clegg and the LibDems did absolutely the right thing 5 years ago, and David Cameron has been magnanimous enough to acknowledge that and thank Clegg in the speech he made a few moments ago - in fact it was the first thing he said. Well done Mr Cameron. Wish everyone else understood what happened here.
SilverSixer said:
He wasn't elected at all, save by his local constituents. His party came third last time and joined a coalition at a time of great risk and instability in the national interest, putting aside the risks Clegg was personally taking (and his party were taking) in the best interests of the country. Those risks have now well and truly materialised, due to people's failure to understand what coalition politics mean. It is not really a reasonable stand to blame him for reducing breadth of British democratic choice when his downfall has come about as a result of people's failure to understand the way democracy works here.
We are not used to coalition politics in this country, and your comments really underline the failure here to understand the principles.
Nick Clegg and the LibDems did absolutely the right thing 5 years ago, and David Cameron has been magnanimous enough to acknowledge that and thank Clegg in the speech he made a few moments ago - in fact it was the first thing he said. Well done Mr Cameron. Wish everyone else understood what happened here.
Yup. Good points made.We are not used to coalition politics in this country, and your comments really underline the failure here to understand the principles.
Nick Clegg and the LibDems did absolutely the right thing 5 years ago, and David Cameron has been magnanimous enough to acknowledge that and thank Clegg in the speech he made a few moments ago - in fact it was the first thing he said. Well done Mr Cameron. Wish everyone else understood what happened here.
SilverSixer said:
Nick Clegg and the LibDems did absolutely the right thing 5 years ago, and David Cameron has been magnanimous enough to acknowledge that and thank Clegg in the speech he made a few moments ago - in fact it was the first thing he said. Well done Mr Cameron. Wish everyone else understood what happened here.
I agree and I find it wierd that the conservatives have taken most of their seats.SilverSixer said:
He wasn't elected at all, save by his local constituents.
Sorry, but rubbish, unless you think the televised election debates - where his popularity flowed from - had no effect beyond Sheffield Hallam. People voted Lib Dem in 2010 because of the potential of his leadership, not purely because of their local MP.SilverSixer said:
His party came third last time and joined a coalition at a time of great risk and instability in the national interest, putting aside the risks Clegg was personally taking (and his party were taking) in the best interests of the country. Those risks have now well and truly materialised, due to people's failure to understand what coalition politics mean. It is not really a reasonable stand to blame him for reducing breadth of British democratic choice when his downfall has come about as a result of people's failure to understand the way democracy works here.
We are not used to coalition politics in this country, and your comments really underline the failure here to understand the principles.
I'm not a complete idiot, and nor are the people you say have failed to understand. I understand what a coalition is, what the compromises are and what the limits of influence are. Though the choices may be difficult, the choices still remain, and when it came to Clegg, he chose to directly contradict his promises and therefore directly betray those who'd given him/the party their support. To add insult to injury, it was for nothing, a five year long car crash.We are not used to coalition politics in this country, and your comments really underline the failure here to understand the principles.
You say that he and his party took a beating for simply forming a coalition. I say that whilst that's surely part of it, they took their beating for not having any principles and not standing up for anything of any note, a wishy washy traitorous party of opportunism that thoroughly deserves to be punished. More fool us for ever giving them votes though, because if you'd asked me prior to Cleggmania whether the LDs could be trusted, I'd have probably said no.
trashbat, if you care to check the numbers, the LibDems actually LOST seats in 2010 compared to the previous election. People have totally forgotten or glossed over this fact.
There was absolutely no surge in support for them due to those televised debates when it came to the only poll that counts - the election proper. If anything it was s disappointing election for the LibDems, and a coalition was necessary because the Tories had failed to capture sufficient Labour seats for a majority.
There was absolutely no surge in support for them due to those televised debates when it came to the only poll that counts - the election proper. If anything it was s disappointing election for the LibDems, and a coalition was necessary because the Tories had failed to capture sufficient Labour seats for a majority.
SilverSixer said:
trashbat, if you care to check the numbers, the LibDems actually LOST seats in 2010 compared to the previous election. People have totally forgotten or glossed over this fact.
There was absolutely no surge in support for them due to those televised debates when it came to the only poll that counts - the election proper. If anything it was s disappointing election for the LibDems, and a coalition was necessary because the Tories had failed to capture sufficient Labour seats for a majority.
This is unarguably true, but it doesn't matter. He and the LDs were still put there by 23% of the voting public - never mind failing to properly capture the surge, what would have happened without those debates? - and they failed them.There was absolutely no surge in support for them due to those televised debates when it came to the only poll that counts - the election proper. If anything it was s disappointing election for the LibDems, and a coalition was necessary because the Tories had failed to capture sufficient Labour seats for a majority.
johnxjsc1985 said:
SilverSixer said:
Nick Clegg and the LibDems did absolutely the right thing 5 years ago, and David Cameron has been magnanimous enough to acknowledge that and thank Clegg in the speech he made a few moments ago - in fact it was the first thing he said. Well done Mr Cameron. Wish everyone else understood what happened here.
I agree and I find it wierd that the conservatives have taken most of their seats.SilverSixer said:
johnxjsc1985 said:
SilverSixer said:
Nick Clegg and the LibDems did absolutely the right thing 5 years ago, and David Cameron has been magnanimous enough to acknowledge that and thank Clegg in the speech he made a few moments ago - in fact it was the first thing he said. Well done Mr Cameron. Wish everyone else understood what happened here.
I agree and I find it wierd that the conservatives have taken most of their seats.trashbat said:
SilverSixer said:
trashbat, if you care to check the numbers, the LibDems actually LOST seats in 2010 compared to the previous election. People have totally forgotten or glossed over this fact.
There was absolutely no surge in support for them due to those televised debates when it came to the only poll that counts - the election proper. If anything it was s disappointing election for the LibDems, and a coalition was necessary because the Tories had failed to capture sufficient Labour seats for a majority.
This is unarguably true, but it doesn't matter. He and the LDs were still put there by 23% of the voting public - never mind failing to properly capture the surge, what would have happened without those debates? - and they failed them.There was absolutely no surge in support for them due to those televised debates when it came to the only poll that counts - the election proper. If anything it was s disappointing election for the LibDems, and a coalition was necessary because the Tories had failed to capture sufficient Labour seats for a majority.
SilverSixer said:
They were not put there by 23% of the public. They were put there by the other two parties ending in near dead heat and needing to be propped up by a lesser party. Nobody can say that the LibDems were actually elected to the government by the people in 2010, they were put in to government by the Parliament which the electorate voted for. Which is a different thing and is the way the British constitution works.
This is deeply tedious now. They were elected to be MPs on the basis that they would represent their constituents, led by Clegg, independently of whether anyone actually expected them to form a government. 23% of the population expressed a wish for the former, who knows how many for the latter. In any capacity, they failed to represent their constituents.I don't know what weird contortions you want to make to escape from that.
Message Board | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff