Vote LIBERAL DEMOCRAT

The Lib Dem vote has not wilted because of the Blue and Red parties. The Lib Dem vote has wilted because of the actions of their own leaders. Actions have consequences and on May 7th the British electorate will give it’s verdict.

The people of Sheffield Hallam may vote Clegg in for another term as MP. If that is the case Labour or the Conservatives may use Clegg to prop up a coalition government.

But if the Lib Dems are not in a coalition government you can bet your bottom dollar that Clegg will be shown the door - because the Lib Dem rank and file will finally demand it.

 

What was written on that note left for the new Treasury Minister. "Sorry no money left. ha ha." Says it all really.

In tough economic times you borrow. In good times you save. Our economic problems stem from the last Labour government running a massive defecit in a huge economic boom. "There will be no more boom and bust" remember that one? Reckless and idiotic.

 

Possibly - and it could be the students who kick him out
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-who-may-cost-the-lib-dems-dear-10170151.html

 

....but you are talking to a long time Lib Dem voter who is proud of their achievements in government and proud of Nick Clegg for his role in doing the right thing too.
There will be many like me.

The Lib Dems will probably lose the votes of those who were never properly on board anyway, so they were always going to be lost.
Any students of 2011 who are still pissed off should either grow up or **** off somewhere else. The Liberal Democrats never were and aren't a single issue party.

If actions have consequences then surely the Labour party should be hemorrhaging votes to the Liberal Democrats....after all they lifted the modern working class out of tax and created more employment.
When has Ed Milliband and his privately educated chums ever done so much for the working man?

 

There won't be many like you - there will be 7% or thereabouts. That's a huge drop from 23% at the last election.

An article in todays paper, I think it was the Independent, reports on a Scottish Lib Dem candidate canvassing in his own area. He avoids using the words "Nick Clegg" at all costs, relying on his local achievements instead. Whether you like it or not Clegg has stigmatised the Lib Dems and they will take a direct hit at this election for not realising that and taking decisive action for the long term good of the party.

Your point about Milliband is correct and it's sad that for the average working class person there isn't a major party that truly represents them.

 

Very true, sad to say.....................

 

So you agree that the economy has gone tits up under the Tories as they have borrowed far more than Labour?

 

Labour bankrupted our economy in 2008, the Tories were left to pick up the pieces. The deficit in Labour's last year was £156Bn, last year it was £90Bn.

 

"it's sad that for the average working class person there isn't a major party that truly represents them."

 

On numbers we'll see.

The fact that Nick Clegg is unpopular with voters does mean they are very likely to lose a lot of votes and a lot of seats.
I just find it depressing that the average voter is so thick, frankly, that they vote on style/image over substance.
When I hear Labour supporters (or former Labour supporters) claim that it is Ed they have the problem with, and if only David had been made leader they could get behind this campaign, I immediately write them off as a moron.
The idea that 2 brothers who were both raised by the same Marxist lecturer father, the same mother, who attended the same schools, who studied the same (or similar subjects....not sure on this one actually) at University, who were part of the same New Labour government under Blair and Brown.....the idea that these 2 people would lead the Labour party in 2 significantly different ways (even if this was possible...as at the end of the day they have to work with the others in the party and the civil service) is total B-O-L-L-O-C-K-S.
People who say they can't support Ed but would have got behind his brother are basing their voting decisions on facial features/expressions and a nasal voice.
****ing cretins.

It is for this reason of course that many Labour party members won't be mentioning Ed Milliband when they go door to door. So perhaps the Labour party should have got rid of him for the same reasons you stated above re: Clegg?
Many Labour party members out there knocking doors also won't mention Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, the Iraq war, the Economy.
Yet a Labour government will most likely be our next government.

So it seems that actions, real serious actions with real serious consequences, don't always have consequences after all.
What you say PGF?



P.S. - The party that represents the working man/woman best, that has put more money in his/her pocket and has created an environment which has stimulated more job opportunities, which has ensured less of his/her tax is being spent on interest on the national debt and more is being spent on the NHS (as opposed to the Labour party in Wales), which has created more apprenticeships for our young people than ever before....the party which is prepared to spend less on nuclear weapons in order to improve the education of the working man/woman and his/her children is the Liberal Democrats
....but if you like you can continue to focus on one policy they couldn't get in the coalition agreement (probably all part of the Tory plan!) and continue to cheerlead the idiocy of voting on style over substance.
Go right ahead.

 

But how much has the Tories borrowed during their term of office ? figures from the Office for National Statistics showed that the coalition had borrowed £430.072 billion, whereas the last Labour government managed to borrow £429.975 billion.This over 3 years compared to 13 of the Labour years and we're still expected to carry the can for both parties financial misrule .

 

Is there a major party that represents the middle-class?

We've got a bunch of tax avoiding toffs in charge, be it blue or red, who will never pass any rules that endanger their, and their friends/families, wealth.

 

When Labour took over in 1997 there was a budget surplus. When the tories took charge there was a £150Bn deficit. In the boom time of the mid-2000's if Labour had sensible economic policies we'd have been running a budget surplus. When the global recession hit we'd have been laughing. Canada did it.

 

....but they are having to borrow because of the structural deficit left to them by the Labour Party.
The government of this country are legally obligated to pay for various things (wages, pensions, payments due on infrastructure projects completed long ago etc.) that were committed to under previous governments.
New Labour spent an awful lot of money on updating infrastructure and too many other things to list. They said that this was necessary after under investment by the Tories in the Major and Thatcher years. They said this was an "investment in our future"....they also said they had "solved boom and bust"....
Well the future arrived, we had a recession (yes because of crookedness on behalf of the banks but a recession nonetheless) as has happened throughout the 20th century....it was as inevitable as night following day and consequently we are committed to far more spending than we have the money coming in to cover.

The borrowing over the last parliament would have been necessary regardless of who held power.
As of today we are still spending £87Billion a year more than the exchequer is bringing in.
There are no magic wands. It can't be wished away.
We've just got to suck up some more cuts over the course of the next parliament to get the deficit down to at least where it should be (ideally in surplus given the economy is starting to grow).
The only debate is the speed.
What the Labour party aren't telling everybody when they appear on TV is that their plan for the next parliament is to cut it at a much slower rate and borrow more than either of the other 2 main parties, in order to "invest" in infrastructure projects again. They reckon this will create more growth.

Frankly, I don't trust them (still no apology for where they left us by the way) and why should anybody?
All I heard from them in the last parliament was opposition to every cut.
All I hear from them on the way into this election is how everybody is going to get more of everything, a land of milk and honey.

but I'm sure everybody will make their own minds up.

 

Or to put it another way (as Robert Peston would put it )....

A popular policy in my house would be if I proposed to buy every bar of chocolate and every sweet in the local garage on a monthly basis and allow my children to eat them exclusively.
It would make me pretty popular. They'd be very happy for a while. The missus and I might get some more peace and I can imagine all kinds of fringe (I want to write "minge" but that would be crass wouldn't it ) benefits....

....but ultimately all of their teeth would fall out, and they would get fat, and their sleep would be disrupted, and their ability to concentrate would diminish. This would be noticed at school and maybe social services would get involved etc.


....but go ahead everyone and vote for the Labour Party and gorge to your heart's content

 

Correct - Labour Party members may not mention Ed Milliband when they are canvassing because he has a poor image, but at the last count he hadn't lied to the electorate and proceeded with a huge U turn as Clegg has done. He isn't as big a liability as Clegg is.

Some Labour Party/Conservative Party policies/decisions of the past have been atrocious as you quite rightly point out. The fact that the Lib Dems can't take advantage just shows what a low opinion the British electorate have of them.

You have made some rash comments - what makes you think I "cheerlead the idiocy of voting on style over substance"? What a ridiculous statement to make.
The OP is about the Lib Dems and I am giving you reasons why they will be an impotent force at the next election. As a Lib Dem member you have to seriously analyse those and act accordingly otherwise the party will be in the political wilderness for the long term.

 

" what makes you think I "cheerlead the idiocy of voting on style over substance"? What a ridiculous statement to make."

See the stuff I've underlined above.


He took the lowest paid in this country out of tax altogether. THAT'S what they did for the working class.
What's the Labour Party done lately apart from crash the economy and left all of our children debt?

Your assertion that he has made the biggest U-turn in history is complete guff. He negotiated what he could.
It seems that coalition politics is beyond the average British voter if that's what everyone thinks.


A direct question.
The Tory party were the only party prepared to negotiate with the Lib Dems and accept a raft of their policy. They wouldn't have the Tuition fee policy. There wasn't the money there to fund it without scrapping Trident and neither the Tories nor the electorate were prepared to accept that.
So what do you think should have happened next?

 

You are not telling me anything I don't know already. The British electorate don't have a Scooby of what's going on and the reasons why certain things happen and certain decisions are taken. They vote for style/image over substance.
This is why Blair kept winning of course, because he had a nice smile didn't seem to matter that he had made the Labour Party a right of centre party, just as long as people had someone with a nice smile and nice teeth who wasn't too effeminate or had a nasally voice on their TV their vote was secured.

I'm very pleased that I never voted for them.



I'm still proud the Lib Dems did the right thing....there would have been negative consequences for all of us if they hadn't.

Obviously, if the Lib Dems take a caning at this election Clegg will no doubt be replaced and a rebrand attempted.
It's too their credit as a party though that they took the right decision, for the benefit of the voters rather than themselves, they took it together and saw it through.
The Labour and the Tory parties would have knifed their leader in the back long ago if they were in this position, because they are the real "snakes in the grass"

 

It's called the cycle of politics , one bunch if half wits take over from the previous bunch of half wits and round and round we go , no social housing , no major manufacturing industries just call centres , the armed forces cut to the bone .overseas aid in abundance to countries who can afford their own space programmes NHS being insidiously privatised with MPs of varying colours who have a vested interest by being on the board of directors of companies who now "supply" their services , uncontrolled immigration , the treat of radicalisation ,children groomed for sex and government protecting those that commit the crime , the police more concerned with the welfare of scum who want to destroy us rather than protecting us ,all part of the picture which is broken Britain today.
No party and I mean NO party can spout their politics and believe they do it for the good of this nation , they do it for the good of them selves and their cronies.

 

I see you avoided the fact that the Tories have borrowed circ £500 billion. Way mire than Labour.