Bloody hell Warky! You found Alan Clark heavy going? You must read The Sun. Clark is one of the most interesting and entertaining writers. I found myself feeling sorry for the poor bugger, he was always getting a cold and thinking he was on his death bed.Ironically he didn't make old bones. I don't know what is happening in modern Britain but it seems to take remarkably little to make a celebrity. Corden is an excellent example of this new crop,uniquely unburdened by talent. I find Brand quite funny - and,also his mum,the hilarious Jo, but I think Farage has made a mistake indulging with a slanging match with him. He is hardly Ludovic Kennedy. And the Lib Dems existed on Labour tactical votes. My wife and son voted Lib Dem last time. They are both reverting to Labour.The LD's are finished for a generation,if not for good.
Very much wishful thinking from you I suspect. I know it's annoying that I'm going to repeat myself, but... It's true for many current LD MPs that they were relying on Labour tactical votes, but the Lib Dems will always have a core of 20 or so because they have core support from certain areas of the country that take more than just a bad couple of years to swing against them. But there is no way as a political party that they can be finished, much as Blairites would love it, though, because they are too ingrained in the political system. It's like all the rabid Tories who got desperately excited with how little support Brown had in 2010 and were convinced the Labour party was going to splinter and crumble leaving it as Lib Dem v Tory. No chance. Lib Dems are part of the furniture. Especially not for an entire generation - they will at worst be knocked back to 1992. The other advantage that LDs have is that they are the party in government - basically their support is at its lowest ebb and will almost certainly be higher come the actual GE. So the real question is actually, how much will they bounce back? I think with Nick Clegg still in charge, such is the media-ingrained feeling against him, there's a good chance they might not get more than 20-25 seats. If they get rid of Clegg, I don't think they can make up enough to get the c.50 that they have had for the last few GEs, but they could very easily get 35-40. They've got a huge selling point now in that they have actually governed. That would probably be considered a good run for them and may well be plenty to see them back in power.
So your argument is that losing 60% of your representation from one election to the next isn't a mortal blow? I know the LD's are undergoing retrenchment and that they will fight like hell to retain seats in places like NW Scotland and SW England. But when you score less than 1% in a by election and are vying with The Loonies for fourth place I think that is quite dire.
Labour came a very poor third in the Rochester by election! Hardly the result of a government in waiting!
No! That's not what I said at all nor is it my argument. I agree 60% of their representation will be an unmitigated disaster, but that's the way it is when you toy with power. The point is they will have 40% left, which will be more than enough to see them remain as the third biggest party. Then they'll bounce back - it might take a bit of time, it might be straight away. A week's a long time in politics. I can overdo the cliches - the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune. But sure enough we will have a political make-up in 10 years that looks much like it did now and much like it did in 2004. As I said earlier (in a different context) plus ça change. Drawing parallels with the odd by-election in a constituency that only went to by-election because we knew it was rabidly anti-everything the Lib Dems stand for (i.e. that it was likely to go to UKIP) is the worst way of measuring performance. Just like opinion polls months in advance are terrible ways of judging. Similarly European elections. That doesn't mean their performance wasn't dire in the by-election, clearly it was. That doesn't mean they'll do well at the next election, I strongly suspect they won't. But it does make any pre-emptive assertions that a significant political party in the UK for the last 300 years will be finished (even for a generation) risible. It's just not what happens. As I said, loads of commentators thought Labour were "finished" based on opinion polls pre-2010 election. That was utterly ridiculous and so it has proven. I honestly don't understand why anyone would think a party will be "finished". We haven't had that happen to a major political party for a hundred years. Some have been in the wilderness (the Liberals), but they've always been there. Like I said, I think it's wishful thinking by Blairites and moderate but dyed-in-the-wool Tories who want the Lib Dems out of their patch. Fair enough, but it remains a pipe dream.
Warky you just don't understand politics mate. You may just as well put forward the same argument about the Tories in Heywood. By elections are totally different events. I would have voted UKIP in Rochester just to get a kick in at Dave's arse. UKIP are not the enemy ,Cameron is. Rob, I accept what you say by the same token. I just think that regressing to where you were thirty years back is a major setback.
The Liberal Democrats as we know them may well be finished, but there will always be a liberal party as one of the main players, even if they have to disband and rebrand (no pun intended) themselves as they did in the 80's under Steel and Owen when they became the SDLP, or even when they became the party we know now at some point in the 90's under Paddy Pantsdown.
The difference is that Labour held the Rochester seat up to 2010 so it was an easily winnable seat for them even despite the minor boundary changes. Heywood on the other hand was one of Labour's safest seats and although they got a 1% swing they only scrapped home. Hardly a ringing endorsement! Yes you can try and pretend that everything is fine but believe me mate Labour has just as much to fear as the Tories do! < ok>
All that mention of the good and great of comedy and no mention of a certain Mr Fry. He played a stunning role in a first world war period piece. Bah!
Warky, You just don't get it do you? In a by election it's never a three way marginal because people are casting votes for all sorts of spurious reasons,like me voting UKIP. I certainly wouldn't do it if I thought there was any chance of them getting power. But what I can do is to encourage other Tories to switch to UKIP thereby weakening Dave. It is a complicated and sophisticated game,but it does work. UKIP winning these by elections will cost the Tories some votes and quite possibly seats at the GE and that is the only reason why I would vote for them. Machiavellian or what?
Why would you want to weaken Cameron. He's keeping the chimps of the party in check. For a Tory I quite like him.
That is probably about the best they can hope for, that someone might consider voting for them. I would love Cameron's chimps to go on the rampage and rip his party apart. Since Thatcher the Tory party has abandoned the One Nation principle. She created the awful underclass we see in Britain today. All of society's ills stem from the top ten per cent and the bottom ten per cent. Neither of course had any choice in belonging to those sectors. It is the duty though of the 80% to take them both in.
