I can't imagine anyone thinks Farron is the right leader for the LDs. He's just not leaderly. They have to work out how they can elect someone else (Lamb), and make it seem like a good thing. Lamb has two things going for him - he's not Farron, and noone really knows who he is - so he'll some space to make his case to the electorate. They should just ask Clegg to resume the leadership in my view, although I presume that's an impossibility.
Not being prime ministerial is not the same as not being leaderly. The Lib Dems don't need prime ministerial; other parties offer that. They need distinctiveness. My guess would be that Farron offers them the best bet because at heart, many Liberals (or more accurately, more ex-Liberals), are oppositionists. They don't like being in power and being responsible; they want to campaign against this or that, they want to propose the other whether it's realistic or not. They want to win by-elections. But they don't want to end up having to defend actual decisions taken in government. Farron offers them that future. Lamb, by contrast, looks suspiciously as if he wants power again.
That's gone up not just this year but the last few elections in a row. A 20.3% increase in Tory votes from 14 years ago is hardly dying out no matter which way you cut it.
So us party members are being denied the chance to hear from Creagh at the hustings and decide whether or not we want to vote for her. Thank you PLP.
They know that the good people of Wakefield will make it an irrelevance in 2020 anyway, rather like our next-door-neighbours did for the former shadow chancellor.
So us party members are being denied the chance to hear from Creagh at the hustings and decide whether or not we want to vote for her. Thank you PLP.
They know that the good people of Wakefield will make it an irrelevance in 2020 anyway, rather like our next-door-neighbours did for the former shadow chancellor.
So us party members are being denied the chance to hear from Creagh at the hustings and decide whether or not we want to vote for her. Thank you PLP.
They know that the good people of Wakefield will make it an irrelevance in 2020 anyway, rather like our next-door-neighbours did for the former shadow chancellor.
Ten quid charity bet at evens?
What terms are you offering given re the probable boundary review between now and then? Also, if we're going to make this bet, I'd rather it was between us directly.
So us party members are being denied the chance to hear from Creagh at the hustings and decide whether or not we want to vote for her. Thank you PLP.
They know that the good people of Wakefield will make it an irrelevance in 2020 anyway, rather like our next-door-neighbours did for the former shadow chancellor.
Ten quid charity bet at evens?
What terms are you offering given re the probable boundary review between now and then?
Just catching up on Question Time from last night. Politicians are becoming more and more average. The Labour leadership election shows that Labour has become thoroughly average and the likes of Matthew Hancock suggest to me that the Tories are well on the way to joining them.
So us party members are being denied the chance to hear from Creagh at the hustings and decide whether or not we want to vote for her. Thank you PLP.
They know that the good people of Wakefield will make it an irrelevance in 2020 anyway, rather like our next-door-neighbours did for the former shadow chancellor.
Ten quid charity bet at evens?
What terms are you offering given re the probable boundary review between now and then?
Bugger, forgot about that. Scrub the idea.
No worries. Better that than an awkward situation later.
Not being prime ministerial is not the same as not being leaderly. The Lib Dems don't need prime ministerial; other parties offer that. They need distinctiveness. My guess would be that Farron offers them the best bet because at heart, many Liberals (or more accurately, more ex-Liberals), are oppositionists. They don't like being in power and being responsible; they want to campaign against this or that, they want to propose the other whether it's realistic or not. They want to win by-elections. But they don't want to end up having to defend actual decisions taken in government. Farron offers them that future. Lamb, by contrast, looks suspiciously as if he wants power again.
You'll not be surprised I disagree with a lot of this partisan piffle. I don't know of anyone in the Party who tries to become a Councillor let alone an MP to simply sit in the comfy chair of Opposition enjoying the futility.
Whatever happened in May we got some things done - some of our ideas and policies enacted. Nowhere near enough and I suspect your Party will now use its majority to seek to undo some of those worthy achievements.
That was more than anything we had achieved in the best part of a century so many Liberal Democrats, while they might regret what happened on May 7th, would consider the experience of Government and 8 MPs far more useful than five wasted years of Opposition and maybe 40 MPs.
The lesson learned perhaps is that it's not about asking how much the junior partner wants to be in Government but how much the senior partner wants to lead that Government. Had the LDs demanded STV without a referendum as the price for a deal in 2010, perhaps the Tories would have walked or perhaps they might have decided they would rather be in Government than in Opposition as well (and we know how desperate the Conservatives were to get back into Govenrment after thirteen years in the comfy seats)
Not being prime ministerial is not the same as not being leaderly. The Lib Dems don't need prime ministerial; other parties offer that. They need distinctiveness. My guess would be that Farron offers them the best bet because at heart, many Liberals (or more accurately, more ex-Liberals), are oppositionists. They don't like being in power and being responsible; they want to campaign against this or that, they want to propose the other whether it's realistic or not. They want to win by-elections. But they don't want to end up having to defend actual decisions taken in government. Farron offers them that future. Lamb, by contrast, looks suspiciously as if he wants power again.
You'll not be surprised I disagree with a lot of this partisan piffle. I don't know of anyone in the Party who tries to become a Councillor let alone an MP to simply sit in the comfy chair of Opposition enjoying the futility.
Whatever happened in May we got some things done - some of our ideas and policies enacted. Nowhere near enough and I suspect your Party will now use its majority to seek to undo some of those worthy achievements.
That was more than anything we had achieved in the best part of a century so many Liberal Democrats, while they might regret what happened on May 7th, would consider the experience of Government and 8 MPs far more useful than five wasted years of Opposition and maybe 40 MPs.
The lesson learned perhaps is that it's not about asking how much the junior partner wants to be in Government but how much the senior partner wants to lead that Government. Had the LDs demanded STV without a referendum as the price for a deal in 2010, perhaps the Tories would have walked or perhaps they might have decided they would rather be in Government than in Opposition as well (and we know how desperate the Conservatives were to get back into Govenrment after thirteen years in the comfy seats)
Football analogy - LibDems are like Wigan - won the cup and got relegated - much better than mid-table mediocrity and no silverware.
Not being prime ministerial is not the same as not being leaderly. The Lib Dems don't need prime ministerial; other parties offer that. They need distinctiveness. My guess would be that Farron offers them the best bet because at heart, many Liberals (or more accurately, more ex-Liberals), are oppositionists. They don't like being in power and being responsible; they want to campaign against this or that, they want to propose the other whether it's realistic or not. They want to win by-elections. But they don't want to end up having to defend actual decisions taken in government. Farron offers them that future. Lamb, by contrast, looks suspiciously as if he wants power again.
You'll not be surprised I disagree with a lot of this partisan piffle. I don't know of anyone in the Party who tries to become a Councillor let alone an MP to simply sit in the comfy chair of Opposition enjoying the futility.
Whatever happened in May we got some things done - some of our ideas and policies enacted. Nowhere near enough and I suspect your Party will now use its majority to seek to undo some of those worthy achievements.
That was more than anything we had achieved in the best part of a century so many Liberal Democrats, while they might regret what happened on May 7th, would consider the experience of Government and 8 MPs far more useful than five wasted years of Opposition and maybe 40 MPs.
The lesson learned perhaps is that it's not about asking how much the junior partner wants to be in Government but how much the senior partner wants to lead that Government. Had the LDs demanded STV without a referendum as the price for a deal in 2010, perhaps the Tories would have walked or perhaps they might have decided they would rather be in Government than in Opposition as well (and we know how desperate the Conservatives were to get back into Govenrment after thirteen years in the comfy seats)
Pretty much agree with that. Well put. The Lib Dems did improve the legislation in the last government, at least from my viewpoint.
But the failure of the Lib Dems in 2015 indicates that there were many Lib Dem voters - as opposed to Lib Dems councillors and MPs - who fall into the ''oppositionist' category David mentions.
That's gone up not just this year but the last few elections in a row. A 20.3% increase in Tory votes from 14 years ago is hardly dying out no matter which way you cut it.
Scottish turnout has gone up in every general election since 2001, I make it by c.25% from 14 years ago. That's one way to cut it.
I can't imagine anyone thinks Farron is the right leader for the LDs. He's just not leaderly. They have to work out how they can elect someone else (Lamb), and make it seem like a good thing. Lamb has two things going for him - he's not Farron, and noone really knows who he is - so he'll some space to make his case to the electorate. They should just ask Clegg to resume the leadership in my view, although I presume that's an impossibility.
Not being prime ministerial is not the same as not being leaderly. The Lib Dems don't need prime ministerial; other parties offer that. They need distinctiveness. My guess would be that Farron offers them the best bet because at heart, many Liberals (or more accurately, more ex-Liberals), are oppositionists. They don't like being in power and being responsible; they want to campaign against this or that, they want to propose the other whether it's realistic or not. They want to win by-elections. But they don't want to end up having to defend actual decisions taken in government. Farron offers them that future. Lamb, by contrast, looks suspiciously as if he wants power again.
The LDs do not need deputy prime ministers or business secretaries or treasury secretaries or climate secretaries. They are not bothered about being in government. Jut carping from the sidelines.
Pretty much agree with that. Well put. The Lib Dems did improve the legislation in the last government, at least from my viewpoint.
But the failure of the Lib Dems in 2015 indicates that there were many Lib Dem voters - as opposed to Lib Dems councillors and MPs - who fall into the ''oppositionist' category David mentions.
I think the Party has already started asking the hard questions about what went wrong and why. My view has always been that the very act of going into one Coalition (with the Conservatives) destroyed a second Coalition (that which formed the LD voting bloc in 2010) but that was compounded by the disasters of tuition fees and AV which catastrophically undermined and ruined Nick Clegg's legitimacy and credibility in the eyes of almost everyone (including many in the party too).
The Party never recovered from those three problems and I don't know whether anything would have made any difference. From essentially 2011, we were on the road to disaster and went off the cliff on May 7th.
We now have to build a new voting bloc and it may include some of those who voted for us before and will have to include many who did not on May 7th, whether they abstained or actively voted for another party. There's no point worrying about how many percent voted UKIP, Green or Conservative - that's history - the need is to start getting a new bloc formed.
Wallington South last night was encouraging as it showed perhaps the first signs of the electorate being prepared to support us again locally - the first tentative step on the long road back.
A lot of, I don't know how else to put it but, Tories and right-wing party supporters think Lamb is necessary because he more strongly supported the recent Conservative-led government. But the Lib Dems were eviscerated by it, so maybe we need to think what they want from their perspective.
You'll not be surprised I disagree with a lot of this partisan piffle. I don't know of anyone in the Party who tries to become a Councillor let alone an MP to simply sit in the comfy chair of Opposition enjoying the futility.
[snip]
The lesson learned perhaps is that it's not about asking how much the junior partner wants to be in Government but how much the senior partner wants to lead that Government. Had the LDs demanded STV without a referendum as the price for a deal in 2010, perhaps the Tories would have walked or perhaps they might have decided they would rather be in Government than in Opposition as well (and we know how desperate the Conservatives were to get back into Govenrment after thirteen years in the comfy seats)
The gap is between the theory and the practice. I'm sure if you asked a lot of Lib Dems, they'd say they'd want to be in power (on the right terms) but what really seems to fire them is opposition to policy. Now, you can argue that they're not unique there, and I'd agree. But I do think that it's a stronger strain of their political make-up than you get in the Tories or Labour.
In no small part it's had to be that way. If you can't deliver then you can only achieve a media presence by proposing something not offered elsewhere or opposing something that is. Given that it's hard for a third (or fourth or fifth) party to set the agenda, opposing was often the only media route available. Even so, the Lib Dems made an electoral art of getting elected by not being someone else. It was frequently backed up by a lot of hard groundwork but the tactics relied on capitalising on being a blank sheet on which voters could express their opposition to someone else.
That said, I'd pay credit to the Lib Dems during the last parliament, most of whom showed commendable restraint on the score despite how uncomfortable it must have been.
I'd agree the Lib Dems played their hand poorly. They could have had a lot more. Not STV for the Commons but possibly they might have had it for the Lords had they pushed that instead of the AV vote. Also they should have argued for at least one big spending ministry. Alternatively, they could have stayed in opposition and delivered by making vote-by-vote deals.
But that's water under the bridge. I'd stand by my original point, that Farron offers them a lot more than Lamb. What I'd be interested to know is how many natural Farron Lib Dems who were members in 2010 are no longer in the party. From reports, there's been a surge in membership since the election. My guess would be that most of these are people who refused to renew while they were in coalition with the Tories. If that's right, the election's Farron's. If it's not right, Farron should still win but it'll be a lot closer and Lamb would stand a decent outside chance.
Just catching up on Question Time from last night. Politicians are becoming more and more average. The Labour leadership election shows that Labour has become thoroughly average and the likes of Matthew Hancock suggest to me that the Tories are well on the way to joining them.
i confess to falling asleep soon after I started watching last night
I'd stand by my original point, that Farron offers them a lot more than Lamb. What I'd be interested to know is how many natural Farron Lib Dems who were members in 2010 are no longer in the party. From reports, there's been a surge in membership since the election. My guess would be that most of these are people who refused to renew while they were in coalition with the Tories. If that's right, the election's Farron's. If it's not right, Farron should still win but it'll be a lot closer and Lamb would stand a decent outside chance.
According to reports, over 80% of the almost 17,000 people who have signed up with the Lib Dems since the election are "new" people. So that supports your second suggestion.
On the other hand, apparently, most of them are dismayed by what they see of this Conservative Government, now that it has thrown off the cloak of coalition. So that would suggest that they do not want the Lib Dems to be too close to the Tories in another government. Not on the cards at present, I know - though who knows how far Cameron might go once he has succeeded in splitting the Conservative Party - but it does suggest that they might be persuaded by Tim Farron´s rather more robust stance.
What I'd be interested to know is how many natural Farron Lib Dems who were members in 2010 are no longer in the party. From reports, there's been a surge in membership since the election. My guess would be that most of these are people who refused to renew while they were in coalition with the Tories. If that's right, the election's Farron's. If it's not right, Farron should still win but it'll be a lot closer and Lamb would stand a decent outside chance.
When the new members reached 10,000, the figures released were that 82% had never been members before. There are about 15,000 now I think, but the indication is that they aren't returning ex-members in the main.
On the other hand, apparently, most of them are dismayed by what they see of this Conservative Government, now that it has thrown off the cloak of coalition. So that would suggest that they do not want the Lib Dems to be too close to the Tories in another government. Not on the cards at present, I know - though who knows how far Cameron might go once he has succeeded in splitting the Conservative Party - but it does suggest that they might be persuaded by Tim Farron´s rather more robust stance.
What I am about to say is often said in a mean-spirited way, but I assure you that I don't mean it in a bad way at all.
Why don't Labour and the LibDems investigate - just "investigate" at this stage - the possibility of merging?
If the LibDems are never going to ally themselves with the Tories again, then they are just splitting the so--called "progressive" vote.
Lets face it modern Labour is not the same party of 30 years ago when differences between the two parties were quite significant. Secondly, in the past, Liberal Unionists and National Liberals successfully infiltrated/merged with the Conservatives and were an influence in making them into being a more centrist party. The LibDems could play the same role with Labour.
I can't imagine anyone thinks Farron is the right leader for the LDs. He's just not leaderly. They have to work out how they can elect someone else (Lamb), and make it seem like a good thing. Lamb has two things going for him - he's not Farron, and noone really knows who he is - so he'll some space to make his case to the electorate. They should just ask Clegg to resume the leadership in my view, although I presume that's an impossibility.
Not being prime ministerial is not the same as not being leaderly. The Lib Dems don't need prime ministerial; other parties offer that. They need distinctiveness. My guess would be that Farron offers them the best bet because at heart, many Liberals (or more accurately, more ex-Liberals), are oppositionists. They don't like being in power and being responsible; they want to campaign against this or that, they want to propose the other whether it's realistic or not. They want to win by-elections. But they don't want to end up having to defend actual decisions taken in government. Farron offers them that future. Lamb, by contrast, looks suspiciously as if he wants power again.
The LDs do not need deputy prime ministers or business secretaries or treasury secretaries or climate secretaries. They are not bothered about being in government. Jut carping from the sidelines.
When the LDs went into coalition they lost their USP - as the party of NOTA. William Hague gave a speech at a fund raising event a few months before the GE. He said that the long days of negotiations with the LDs left him completely shattered. When eventually he was able to go home he said his wife asked what had transpired. He told her that he was too tired to explain and that she would be able to read all about it in the papers, but basically, he had destroyed the LDs.
Comments
2001 360,658
2005 369,388
2010 412,855
2015 434,094
That's gone up not just this year but the last few elections in a row. A 20.3% increase in Tory votes from 14 years ago is hardly dying out no matter which way you cut it.
Comments by ex-BBC Scotland presenter Derek Bateman at derekbateman.co.uk may be of interest.
Whatever happened in May we got some things done - some of our ideas and policies enacted. Nowhere near enough and I suspect your Party will now use its majority to seek to undo some of those worthy achievements.
That was more than anything we had achieved in the best part of a century so many Liberal Democrats, while they might regret what happened on May 7th, would consider the experience of Government and 8 MPs far more useful than five wasted years of Opposition and maybe 40 MPs.
The lesson learned perhaps is that it's not about asking how much the junior partner wants to be in Government but how much the senior partner wants to lead that Government. Had the LDs demanded STV without a referendum as the price for a deal in 2010, perhaps the Tories would have walked or perhaps they might have decided they would rather be in Government than in Opposition as well (and we know how desperate the Conservatives were to get back into Govenrment after thirteen years in the comfy seats)
But the failure of the Lib Dems in 2015 indicates that there were many Lib Dem voters - as opposed to Lib Dems councillors and MPs - who fall into the ''oppositionist' category David mentions.
The Party never recovered from those three problems and I don't know whether anything would have made any difference. From essentially 2011, we were on the road to disaster and went off the cliff on May 7th.
We now have to build a new voting bloc and it may include some of those who voted for us before and will have to include many who did not on May 7th, whether they abstained or actively voted for another party. There's no point worrying about how many percent voted UKIP, Green or Conservative - that's history - the need is to start getting a new bloc formed.
Wallington South last night was encouraging as it showed perhaps the first signs of the electorate being prepared to support us again locally - the first tentative step on the long road back.
In no small part it's had to be that way. If you can't deliver then you can only achieve a media presence by proposing something not offered elsewhere or opposing something that is. Given that it's hard for a third (or fourth or fifth) party to set the agenda, opposing was often the only media route available. Even so, the Lib Dems made an electoral art of getting elected by not being someone else. It was frequently backed up by a lot of hard groundwork but the tactics relied on capitalising on being a blank sheet on which voters could express their opposition to someone else.
That said, I'd pay credit to the Lib Dems during the last parliament, most of whom showed commendable restraint on the score despite how uncomfortable it must have been.
I'd agree the Lib Dems played their hand poorly. They could have had a lot more. Not STV for the Commons but possibly they might have had it for the Lords had they pushed that instead of the AV vote. Also they should have argued for at least one big spending ministry. Alternatively, they could have stayed in opposition and delivered by making vote-by-vote deals.
But that's water under the bridge. I'd stand by my original point, that Farron offers them a lot more than Lamb. What I'd be interested to know is how many natural Farron Lib Dems who were members in 2010 are no longer in the party. From reports, there's been a surge in membership since the election. My guess would be that most of these are people who refused to renew while they were in coalition with the Tories. If that's right, the election's Farron's. If it's not right, Farron should still win but it'll be a lot closer and Lamb would stand a decent outside chance.
Satire is like a phoenix.
On the other hand, apparently, most of them are dismayed by what they see of this Conservative Government, now that it has thrown off the cloak of coalition. So that would suggest that they do not want the Lib Dems to be too close to the Tories in another government. Not on the cards at present, I know - though who knows how far Cameron might go once he has succeeded in splitting the Conservative Party - but it does suggest that they might be persuaded by Tim Farron´s rather more robust stance.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/12/politics/iowa-straw-poll-canceled-killed/
For anyone that would like to play, the game is now out, and entries close at 7pm on Wednesday:
http://www.electiongame.co.uk/denmark15/
Many thanks,
DC
Why don't Labour and the LibDems investigate - just "investigate" at this stage - the possibility of merging?
If the LibDems are never going to ally themselves with the Tories again, then they are just splitting the so--called "progressive" vote.
Lets face it modern Labour is not the same party of 30 years ago when differences between the two parties were quite significant. Secondly, in the past, Liberal Unionists and National Liberals successfully infiltrated/merged with the Conservatives and were an influence in making them into being a more centrist party. The LibDems could play the same role with Labour.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/11669652/Thatll-be-175-quadrillion-Zimbabwean-dollars-please.html