Bi election result

[rs1952]

Just to put my cards on the table before I start. I am not (particularly) a LD supporter, but I would prefer them to labour. However, as I live in a constituency where the tories win, the lib dems come second and labour just about hold on to their deposit (and it has been that way since the 1920s), what I think and do personally in an election is of no consequence - this consituency will return a tory next time!

Derek Smith said:

rs1952 said:

Derek Smith said:

The biggest risk to the coalition is the Liberal party. If the vote on AV goes down the tubes then they will have to try and salvage their party from the pit it is in at present or it will disappear. It might even collapse before that. It is all very well Cameron saying that he will run full term but circumstances dictate.

If the vote goes against the LibDems then there will probably be an internal coup. Clegg will be kicked out, ostensibly because he backtracked on solemn pre-election promises, such as not raising tuition fees and not raising VAT. Oh, hold on, only one of those. Then there will be a renegotiation of terms.

If the referendum goes against the LDs then they will have to live with the result. Unless criticisms of how the campaign was handled could be made to stick, I can't see a leadership coupe coming, if for no other reason that there is no obvious candidate at the moment who is likely to resurrect the party's electability sufficiently to make it worthwhile.

When has the lack of a suitble replacement ever stopped a leadership challenge?

Usually more to do with a lack of guts on the part of the "contenders" (I'm thinking particularly of such people as Michael Hessletine and David Milliband - there are plenty of other examples). The LDs have not done too well in picking leaders after the departure of Paddy Ashdown. First we had Charles Kennedy (a good leader but the media had him down as a pisshead) Menzies Campbell (media had him down as too old) and now His Clegness, who looks and sounds more like a tory than anybody since Joe Grimmond.

Note especially the use of the phrase "media had him down as." The only "heavyweights I can think of in the LDs at the moment are Vince Cable (who managed to piss on his own chips a couple of weeks ago, so the media would go for him if he stood) and Simon Hughes, under whom the party would probably lurch leftwards and lose half its support.

Derek Smith said:

I don't see any political party, of whatever colour or belief, having to live with a result. It has never happened before.

Happens more often that you think. Call Me Dave and votes for prisoners, perhaps

However, back to the thrust. Referenda aren't held very often. The last UK-wide one, nearly 40 years ago, has been lived with since. The problem is, referenda aren't like ordinary parliamentary business where the change of a government can easily lead to changes of policy and repeal of the previous lot's laws. You could theoretically do the same (as a new incoming government) with the result of an earlier referendum, but you would be on dodgier ground because "the people have spoken." You need to be very sure that "the people would speak something else now." Indeed (and before anybody goes off on the fairly obvious tangent that this comment might elicit) sometimes you might not be given a second referendum on a topic because they know they'll get the answer they don't want.

The LDs have been carping on about proportional representation since Lloyd George split the party in the 1920s. The two major parties would not give it to them for 85 years and more. They have now managed to wrangle a referendum on the issue out of the tories. If they "lose" it, the matter will be dead in the water for another couple of generations. They will have to live with it.

Derek Smith said:

The LibDems have risked a considerable amount on this coalition and at the moment it doesn't seem to be paying off. Indeed, the only payoff is the AV. But the LD have effectively campaigned against a positive vote. The thought that will cross many people's minds is that the LDs were unable to influence the tories to any significant degree. In fact it would appear to have been all one way. The only concession the tories have made is for the AV referendum, and that was an essential after their last coalition.

Why do you say the LDs "have effectively campaigned against a positive vote" (I'll have to leave that open for further reply because I'm buggered if I can see it)

However, the referendum is not the only influence that the LDs have had. The one other that immediately springs to mind is the increasing personal tax allowance, which would not have happened if the tories formed a majority government. I know there are others but this post is going to be long enough already without me going off to research the subject in more detail - have that one to be going on with

Derek Smith said:

If I was an LD I would feel that my party had missed a great opportunity. We had one of the most unpopular parties in government ever and still Cameron couldn’t squeeze a simple majority. There is a massive opportunity for a real solid leader to come forward and take control yet here they are, actually loosing masses of support.

Now you're losing me because you seem to be talking about the LDs (first and third sentence) then talk about Call Me Dave in the second sentence. But lets have a look at some of the things you say and answer them as I think you mean them to be addressed:

If I was an LD I would feel that my party had missed a great opportunity

Being in power for the first time in a couple of generations is a missed opportunity? Especially when the number of your MPs went down from the previous parliament? When you are the third largest party you now have cabinet ministers in your ranks? I can think of many people who wouldn't mind having a "missed opportunity" like that

We had one of the most unpopular parties in government ever and still Cameron couldn’t squeeze a simple majority

But he did manage to get the largest number of MPs. The Thatcher government was deeply unpopular in the early 1980s, yet they won again in 1983. The Major government was deeply unpopular in 1992 but Neil Kinnock's lot didn't manage to chuck them out. He has done rather better than previous leaders of the opposition in similar circumstances.

There is a massive opportunity for a real solid leader to come forward and take control yet here they are, actually loosing masses of support

I think you'back to the LDs here? Or perhaps not. Anyway, if you are on about the LDs, I've already discussed leadership issues above. As regards "losing masses of support" (and this could apply to either party in the coalition) it is early days FFS. All governments of whatever persuasion become unpopular pretty quickly after they become elected, usually stirred up by that part of the media who didn't support them anyway. What's new?

What the polls say this week, next week, next month or next year makes sod all difference. What does make a difference is what the polls say when CMD goes to Buck House to hand in his notice. And that isn't going to happen just yet

Derek Smith said:

The rank and file of the LD must see this. If AV goes down the tubes they will have lost half their vote. And deservedly.

It may well be the case that some LD support may peel away if the AV referendum gets lost, but don't forget that there is a lot more to the LDs as a party than the handful of MPs they have in Westminster. They have a power base in one hell of a lot of local authorities up and down the country, and life will go on there whatever happens in Westminster.

Derek Smith said:

The bye-election was remarkable. Every leader was relieved yet there was nothing positive in it for any of them. Just not too bad.

Derek, I don't know but I suspect we are of similar ages. If that is right, we have both had 40 years worth of politicians putting the best possible spin for themselves, and the worst possible spin for their opponents, on the outcomes of elections. Perhaps I've just noticed it more than you. So, once again, what's new?

Derek Smith said:

I cannot see the coalition lasting. The LD has too much to lose by sticking with the tories, who will become more and more disliked as time goes on. If there was a strong, imaginative and shrewd leader then it might be worth risking but all they have is Cameron. His policies seem to me to be peaking in four or five years. There is no investment. He will, I am certain, have to pull a few U turns as time goes by and this always upsets the populace.

There will be more demonstrations, the fuel depots will be surrounded as businesses and individuals struggle to cope. Prices will rocket. TheLD will see an opportunity for their party to be seen as the sensible option and then pull the plug on a point of principle. In other words at what they see as the most opportune time. And it won’t be at the end of 5 years.

Answered above and in previous posts on this thread

[Derek Smith]

Robin,

To help explain my point of view, I support no particular party. I’ve voted for all three main parties in my time and once for an independent whom I knew personally. It turned out he hardly knew anyone. I have little confidence in the ability of politicians to run the country so it is just as well that most don’t. I had very left wing relations and very ultra conservatives as well (mostly female for the latter). My parents were vaguely left wing, their response to the great Atlee government that took us out of WW II with a great deal of stability. I regard him as one of the two greatest post war leaders, and not second of those.

I’m in my 60s, and listening to All along the watchtower as I type this. So that’s me.

As you say, the weakness of the LDs is in their lack of charismatic leader and the down that the media have on them. Whilst I agree that if they lose the AV vote there will be little chance of changing it for years, what I meant by not living with it is that if they do lose the vote then there will be little point in staying in government. They will need to blame a person and I think there is little doubt who that will be. Will a new leader want to stay in the coalition? I think only until it is advantageous to bring it down.

If they leave the government then nothing will really have changed. They will vote with the tories until they have recovered sufficient standing to risk a general election. That might take 4 years, it might be less. It will probably be more. But if there is public disorder then it might be this year.

Sorry to bugger you. What I meant by campaigned against a positive was that they have not shown any reason to get the LDs in power. They had just the one cast-iron promise and they reneged on that.

And therein is the great opportunity. They could have made a demand of the student fees and made it stick showing everyone that they would have authority in a coalition.

I can’t help thinking that if I was Cameron I would have felt that it was a victory to make the LDs back down on their major promise.

As regards the various leaders being relieved, I wasn’t talking about the spin they put on it. That was laughably thin from all of them. I was talking about what they really felt.

The LDs were king makers but they didn’t make enough of it.

[crankedup]

As a Lib-Dem (Social Democratic) I am bitterly disappointed with my Party. Although believing all of the pre-election rhetoric would show naivety I do feel truly let down by the Leaders of the Party. They have abandoned and watered down so much of what we stand for that I no longer believe that a Lib- Dem political party exists. I didn't give them my vote to help the Conservatives into Government and they will not be having the benefit of my vote again in the future.
Where all of us disaffected Lib-Dems vote for at the next election COULD have significant bearing on both of the main Parties.

[rs1952]

crankedup said:

As a Lib-Dem (Social Democratic) I am bitterly disappointed with my Party. Although believing all of the pre-election rhetoric would show naivety I do feel truly let down by the Leaders of the Party. They have abandoned and watered down so much of what we stand for that I no longer believe that a Lib- Dem political party exists. I didn't give them my vote to help the Conservatives into Government and they will not be having the benefit of my vote again in the future.
Where all of us disaffected Lib-Dems vote for at the next election COULD have significant bearing on both of the main Parties.

Whilst I do not doubt your sincerity, we hear "I will never vote for so-and-so party ever again" every day of the week from somebody. Hardly a day goes by when somebody isn't saying it on Jeremy Vine on radio 2

'Twas ever thus. Parties gain and lose supporters - the trick, as a politician, is to make sure that your losses do not outweigh your gains. We were reading much on here immediately post-election about how, if the tories had only been a bit further to the right and had got UKIP supporters back on board, they would have won outright. Oh, would they? What about those on the left of the party? Would they have stayed or would they think that the LDs or labour would have then catered more for their views? It appears CMD and his advisors thought there were more votes in appealing to the Ken Clarke end of the party. I think they were right, but I'm just an outside observer.

Post again just after the next election and tell us how you voted

[crankedup]

rs1952 said:

crankedup said:

As a Lib-Dem (Social Democratic) I am bitterly disappointed with my Party. Although believing all of the pre-election rhetoric would show naivety I do feel truly let down by the Leaders of the Party. They have abandoned and watered down so much of what we stand for that I no longer believe that a Lib- Dem political party exists. I didn't give them my vote to help the Conservatives into Government and they will not be having the benefit of my vote again in the future.
Where all of us disaffected Lib-Dems vote for at the next election COULD have significant bearing on both of the main Parties.

Whilst I do not doubt your sincerity, we hear "I will never vote for so-and-so party ever again" every day of the week from somebody. Hardly a day goes by when somebody isn't saying it on Jeremy Vine on radio 2

'Twas ever thus. Parties gain and lose supporters - the trick, as a politician, is to make sure that your losses do not outweigh your gains. We were reading much on here immediately post-election about how, if the tories had only been a bit further to the right and had got UKIP supporters back on board, they would have won outright. Oh, would they? What about those on the left of the party? Would they have stayed or would they think that the LDs or labour would have then catered more for their views? It appears CMD and his advisors thought there were more votes in appealing to the Ken Clarke end of the party. I think they were right, but I'm just an outside observer.

Post again just after the next election and tell us how you voted

Yes its a difficult position Lib-Dems find themselves in (nothing changes). My guess is that we will have to re-brand the Party yet again. But there is no shame in that as both major Parties have trod this path. What is certain is how unelectable all the parties seem to be currently.

[rs1952]

Derek Smith said:

As you say, the weakness of the LDs is in their lack of charismatic leader and the down that the media have on them. Whilst I agree that if they lose the AV vote there will be little chance of changing it for years, what I meant by not living with it is that if they do lose the vote then there will be little point in staying in government.

I think this is our only real point of disagreement. If the LDs lose the AV vote then they would have a major problem, in that a policy they have held to their hearts for years had been thrown out, but most importantly of all, BY THE ELECTORATE.

They would need a long period of reflection about where they go from that point, and chucking dummies out of the pram at the tories is the last thing they would do if they had any sense. Assuming the polls were still at rock bottom when AV was lost, many long term LD voters would be more likely to peel away at that point because they might feel there's nothing left for the party to fight for. And if the tories poll ratings were picking up at the time they dumped the caolition? They would be playing into the tories hands and they would be back to holding parliamentary meetings for MPs in the phone box for a generation or two.

crankedup said:

Yes its a difficult position Lib-Dems find themselves in (nothing changes). My guess is that we will have to re-brand the Party yet again. But there is no shame in that as both major Parties have trod this path. What is certain is how unelectable all the parties seem to be currently.

The LDs and the Ls before them have always had the problem that they have to aim for the centre ground, and both the main parties only ever get elected if they also aim for the centre ground (Thatcher excepted, that is). That's why the LDs get squeezed at each and every election.

They can never get to the right of the conservatives, but they could easily get to the left of labour. But would they really want to be there?

[crankedup]

The Lib-Dems refused the hand of friendship from the Labour Party, as we all know, and thanks be praise for that. I expected a much stronger vote for LD's this time around but it was not to be, a finer balance between the Coalition Government of the front bench may have seen a completely new perspective of Lib-Dems. As it is they are simply pandering to the Conservatives whilst assuring us its 'in the National interest'. Lambs to the slaughter more like.