politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Davey slips to his lowest level yet in the LD leadership betti

System

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Davey slips to his lowest level yet in the LD leadership betting

Over the last two to three weeks there has been a fair amount of movement in the Lib Dem leadership betting with money starting to go on the Oxford West & Abingdon MP Layla Moran and with the acting leader, Ed Davey edging out.

Read the full story here

TheScreamingEagles

Time to quarantine France for a millennium.

Build a wall all around France.

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1220789075369656320

TheScreamingEagles

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

BluestBlue

There are 11 LD MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every month, with month 12 left unfilled to represent the anarchist perspective?

It's hardly going to work out any worse than what they actually have planned, is it?

MikeSmithson

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

That's the message I've got from my LD contacts.

HYUFD

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

If Labour are to return to power at the next general election it will probably be in coalition with the LDs, so LD activists just looking for a leader open to and able to do that presumably, though I suspect even Davey would do a deal with Starmer over Boris, with Long Bailey they would stay neutral

Andy_JS

O/T

It's 2nd February 1989 on BBC4's Top of the Pops re-runs right now.

stodge

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

Well, you haven't spoken to me so you need to try harder.

I'm much less bothered about the "Coalition" tag than some - by 2024 the Coalition will be ancient history for all except the sad old pachyderms on here who trot out the usual cliches.

I've heard Sir Ed and I'd be perfectly happy with him as leader. I doubt Daisy Cooper will stand though I think she could be "next" if she turns St Albans (and let's hope the whole of England one day) into an LD fortress.

I've not heard Layla Moran speak so will reserve judgement and the same is true of both Christine Jardine and Wera Hobhouse.

I look forward to Hustings on a warm summer evening.

One depressing part of the passage from winter to spring is the rugby bores who will be with us from next week. I had the misfortune of playing rugby at school - anyone who enjoys it or even thinks of it as a sport as distinct from a semi-organised brawl deserves to have their half-time pizza covered with a range of tropical fruit including papaya and guava.

StevenWhaley

BluestBlue said:

There are 11 LD MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every month, with month 12 left unfilled to represent the anarchist perspective?

It's hardly going to work out any worse than what they actually have planned, is it?

There are 365 Conservative MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every day, with 29th February left unfilled to represent the vacuous nature of the party?

Seriously though, if Wera Hobhouse stands in the Lib Dem leadership contest then she's certain to get my vote as I think she's far and away the most impressive MP in our team. If she doesn't stand then I'll consider with an open mind all who do stand.

DecrepiterJohnL

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

They should elect Nick Clegg in the hope he will donate some of his Facebook squillions.

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

FF43

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

Now the Tory Party has turned into a monster would you want to be reminded that you were once allied to it?

Nigelb

TheScreamingEagles said:

Time to quarantine France for a millennium.

Build a wall all around France.

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1220789075369656320

Didn’t they try that between the wars ... ?

HYUFD

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

They should elect Nick Clegg in the hope he will donate some of his Facebook squillions.

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

On a swing of 5% from the Tories to Labour they would win 13 Tory seats at the next general election, on a swing of 10% they would win 26 Tory seats. That could be the difference between another Tory majority or a Labour minority or coalition government

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat

Sunil_Prasannan

LOL! Completely forgot about the LibDems!

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1220789046059982849?s=20

FF43

Toby Young really isn't worth the time we spend on him. But for some reason we do. He's stupid, offensive, and no wit to redeem his lack of any other quality.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1220702714541199360?s=20

stodge

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

matt

stodge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

Well, you haven't spoken to me so you need to try harder.

I'm much less bothered about the "Coalition" tag than some - by 2024 the Coalition will be ancient history for all except the sad old pachyderms on here who trot out the usual cliches.

I've heard Sir Ed and I'd be perfectly happy with him as leader. I doubt Daisy Cooper will stand though I think she could be "next" if she turns St Albans (and let's hope the whole of England one day) into an LD fortress.

I've not heard Layla Moran speak so will reserve judgement and the same is true of both Christine Jardine and Wera Hobhouse.

I look forward to Hustings on a warm summer evening.

One depressing part of the passage from winter to spring is the rugby bores who will be with us from next week. I had the misfortune of playing rugby at school - anyone who enjoys it or even thinks of it as a sport as distinct from a semi-organised brawl deserves to have their half-time pizza covered with a range of tropical fruit including papaya and guava.

There are people who post here and refer to Wilson as if he were just yesterday and not 45 years ago. Memories of obsessives are long. The wider electorate, less so. Could 1 in 10 members of the general public name a member of the now (or probably ex-) LDs who was in government?

squareroot2

Sunil_Prasannan said:

LOL! Completely forgot about the LibDems!

I think the Lib Dems have too!

MJW

HYUFD said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

If Labour are to return to power at the next general election it will probably be in coalition with the LDs, so LD activists just looking for a leader open to and able to do that presumably, though I suspect even Davey would do a deal with Starmer over Boris, with Long Bailey they would stay neutral

Well yes - who is Labour leader matters infinitely more than who is Lib Dem leader as to whether a deal could be done. This is what has driven me bonkers pre and post election about people who are either disingenuous Labour supporters or people who should know better saying the Lib Dems are somehow to blame for the defeat of the left for not doing some kind of deal with Labour. They can't do a deal with the hard left for the same reason they can't do a deal with Johnson (and arguably shouldn't have, certainly without stronger guarantees, with Cameron). The hard left's goals and methods are morally, politically, and electorally incompatible with liberal ones. There's no way they could do a deal with an RLB led party unless she ditched Corbynism and its toxic individuals and ideas, if it's still Len and the gang in the background, then no way, for the same reasons you wouldn't deal with Boris - you're helping people into power who you believe will do the wrong things, in the wrong ways, often in very harmful ways.

Starmer, Nandy, or even Thornberry - not a problem, you might not like them, or agree with them much, but you're in a negotiation over how to achieve broadly shared aims you believe are achieved by different means. Not putting a fox in the henhouse in the hope it somehow makes you both a nice coq au vin.

HYUFD

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

DecrepiterJohnL

stodge said:

One depressing part of the passage from winter to spring is the rugby bores who will be with us from next week. I had the misfortune of playing rugby at school - anyone who enjoys it or even thinks of it as a sport as distinct from a semi-organised brawl deserves to have their half-time pizza covered with a range of tropical fruit including papaya and guava.

The greatest change in sport in the last few decades is in rugby union which used to be played in ploughed fields by enthusiastic but unfit and amateurs. Marvel at old rugby matches as players run in slow motion through the mud, dropping the ball as often as they catch it. Now it is a summer game, played by fit, fast professionals on good pitches. It is barely recognisable as the same sport.

BigRich

FF43 said:

Toby Young really isn't worth the time we spend on him. But for some reason we do. He's stupid, offensive, and no wit to redeem his lack of any other quality.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1220702714541199360?s=20

At the moment EU nationals can vote in UK local elections. does that end next week, or carry on for the transition period?

I assume it ends, but not sure if this will have a significant impact in the elections in May.possibly not a lot in most places, but in London?

kinabalu

FF43 said:

Toby Young really isn't worth the time we spend on him. But for some reason we do. He's stupid, offensive, and no wit to redeem his lack of any other quality.

Agree. If a ban were proposed I would be fine with that.

kicorse

FF43 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

Now the Tory Party has turned into a monster would you want to be reminded that you were once allied to it?

The Coalition was a real problem for Jo Swinson during the election campaign. They thought the country had moved on from that, but they were wrong. Can't blame them for wanting to ensure it doesn't happen again.

It's a shame though. The decision to go into that coalition did seem to come from a sense of responsibility towards good governance, even if some of the austerity policies they subsequently agreed to were shameful. That's in contrast to their behaviour over the last year, when a much softer - and less harmful - Brexit would probably have been possible without their unprincipled Remain-vote-hunting extremism.

DecrepiterJohnL

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

Alphabet_Soup

If the LibDems aren't prepared to participate in government why are they bothering to stand? "Vote for us and we'll take potshots from the back benches" isn't much of a rallying cry. Their biggest mistake was fighting the 2015 election as if they'd been in opposition instead of defending their record in office. All their current problems stem from that. As for leadership ... there's nothing much to lead, sadly.

stodge

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

HYUFD

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

squareroot2

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

Picking Long Bailey for Labour leader would be a start in the LD recovery.

justin124

matt said:

stodge said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

Well, you haven't spoken to me so you need to try harder.

I'm much less bothered about the "Coalition" tag than some - by 2024 the Coalition will be ancient history for all except the sad old pachyderms on here who trot out the usual cliches.

I've heard Sir Ed and I'd be perfectly happy with him as leader. I doubt Daisy Cooper will stand though I think she could be "next" if she turns St Albans (and let's hope the whole of England one day) into an LD fortress.

I've not heard Layla Moran speak so will reserve judgement and the same is true of both Christine Jardine and Wera Hobhouse.

I look forward to Hustings on a warm summer evening.

One depressing part of the passage from winter to spring is the rugby bores who will be with us from next week. I had the misfortune of playing rugby at school - anyone who enjoys it or even thinks of it as a sport as distinct from a semi-organised brawl deserves to have their half-time pizza covered with a range of tropical fruit including papaya and guava.

There are people who post here and refer to Wilson as if he were just yesterday and not 45 years ago. Memories of obsessives are long. The wider electorate, less so. Could 1 in 10 members of the general public name a member of the now (or probably ex-) LDs who was in government?

I don't believe being obsessive and having a good memory necessarily go together. I have always been blessed with the latter and can recall detail of personal family events from when I was a mere two years old.I have no interest in football - but can recall who won the FA Cup every year from 1962 - 1967 - and 1970.In no way am I obsessed with it - indeed on the contrary.

BluestBlue

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

As Stephen Bush likes to say, the Leader of the the Lib Dems in the eyes of the average voter is the Leader of the Labour Party. When the Labour leader is dire, the Lib Dems fail to make progress because Tory and centrist voters are unwilling to risk letting Labour into power.

When the Labour leader is not as popular as an arsenic-flavoured lollipop, LD and Lab can make big advances together, as notably in 1997.

squareroot2

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

justin124

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

I disagree there - Wilson was charismatic..
Thorpe also had much less gravitas than his predecessor - Jo Grimond.

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1220789046059982849?s=20

At last! Something about which I can agree with Boris.

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

Their vote fell 1% to 17.8%, and their seats went from 18 to 46.

HYUFD

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

Their vote fell 1% to 17.8%, and their seats went from 18 to 46.

In their target seats their vote rose significantly as the main non Tory alternative

rcs1000

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

I disagree there - Wilson was charismatic..
Thorpe also had much less gravitas than his predecessor - Jo Grimond.

Interesting, I thought Thorpe was pretty charismatic. (Based, I admit, solely on having seen a few things on YT)

kicorse

StevenWhaley said:

BluestBlue said:

There are 11 LD MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every month, with month 12 left unfilled to represent the anarchist perspective?

It's hardly going to work out any worse than what they actually have planned, is it?

There are 365 Conservative MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every day, with 29th February left unfilled to represent the vacuous nature of the party?

Seriously though, if Wera Hobhouse stands in the Lib Dem leadership contest then she's certain to get my vote as I think she's far and away the most impressive MP in our team. If she doesn't stand then I'll consider with an open mind all who do stand.

What is it that impresses you?

Have to admit I winced when I saw she might stand, but that's because I've only ever seen her in parliament, pointlessly repeating well-worn arguments on Brexit. For all I know, it may well be that she has lots to offer on other topics.

justin124

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Yes - that makes sense. You are also quite correct to counsel fellow Tories against complacency in the likely event of Starmer - or Nandy - becoming Labour leader

Quincel

StevenWhaley said:

BluestBlue said:

There are 11 LD MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every month, with month 12 left unfilled to represent the anarchist perspective?

It's hardly going to work out any worse than what they actually have planned, is it?

There are 365 Conservative MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every day, with 29th February left unfilled to represent the vacuous nature of the party?

[Edit: Ignore]

DecrepiterJohnL

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

I disagree there - Wilson was charismatic..
Thorpe also had much less gravitas than his predecessor - Jo Grimond.

The LibDems do not need gravitas right now. Vince Cable had gravitas. Where did it get them?

Labour looks set to elect the dullest man in the Commons and it does not matter because the Leader of the Opposition is ex officio a significant figure who has six PMQs each week and whose party is invited onto every news and current affairs programme. The LibDems do not have that luxury.

Mexicanpete

FF43 said:

Toby Young really isn't worth the time we spend on him. But for some reason we do. He's stupid, offensive, and no wit to redeem his lack of any other quality.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1220702714541199360?s=20

How could a decent human being like Michael Young spawn such an odious offspring?

NickPalmer

BigRich said:

FF43 said:

Toby Young really isn't worth the time we spend on him. But for some reason we do. He's stupid, offensive, and no wit to redeem his lack of any other quality.

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/toadmeister/status/1220702714541199360?s=20

At the moment EU nationals can vote in UK local elections. does that end next week, or carry on for the transition period?

I assume it ends, but not sure if this will have a significant impact in the elections in May.possibly not a lot in most places, but in London?

Interesting point. I think the legislation says that EU citizens can vote, rather than "EU citizens like us" or some such qualifying phrase which would have been made obsolete by our leaving. It probably needs amendment if the Government wishes to change it - which they may not, any more than they removed the right of Irish nationals to vote after Ireland ceased to be part of the UK.

DecrepiterJohnL

HYUFD said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

They should elect Nick Clegg in the hope he will donate some of his Facebook squillions.

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

On a swing of 5% from the Tories to Labour they would win 13 Tory seats at the next general election, on a swing of 10% they would win 26 Tory seats. That could be the difference between another Tory majority or a Labour minority or coalition government

http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/liberal-democrat

It is the new leader's job to make that happen. Not to disappear from our screens for five years and hope something will turn up.

justin124

rcs1000 said:

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

I disagree there - Wilson was charismatic..
Thorpe also had much less gravitas than his predecessor - Jo Grimond.

Interesting, I thought Thorpe was pretty charismatic. (Based, I admit, solely on having seen a few things on YT)

He was very much seen as a 'Dandy' figure - but not taken particularly seriously beyond Feb/March 1974.Jo Grimond had much more intellectual depth.

rcs1000

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

Their vote fell 1% to 17.8%, and their seats went from 18 to 46.

In their target seats their vote rose significantly as the main non Tory alternative

I was agreeing with you

StevenWhaley

kicorse said:

StevenWhaley said:

BluestBlue said:

There are 11 LD MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every month, with month 12 left unfilled to represent the anarchist perspective?

It's hardly going to work out any worse than what they actually have planned, is it?

There are 365 Conservative MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every day, with 29th February left unfilled to represent the vacuous nature of the party?

Seriously though, if Wera Hobhouse stands in the Lib Dem leadership contest then she's certain to get my vote as I think she's far and away the most impressive MP in our team. If she doesn't stand then I'll consider with an open mind all who do stand.

What is it that impresses you?

Have to admit I winced when I saw she might stand, but that's because I've only ever seen her in parliament, pointlessly repeating well-worn arguments on Brexit. For all I know, it may well be that she has lots to offer on other topics.

To my mind she has gravitas, presence, charisma and eloquence... though I accept that, obviously, different people see different things so it might just be me.

matt

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

I disagree there - Wilson was charismatic..
Thorpe also had much less gravitas than his predecessor - Jo Grimond.

Deleted. However fair, rudeness isn’t.

squareroot2

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

ty

justin124

DecrepiterJohnL said:

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

I disagree there - Wilson was charismatic..
Thorpe also had much less gravitas than his predecessor - Jo Grimond.

The LibDems do not need gravitas right now. Vince Cable had gravitas. Where did it get them?

Labour looks set to elect the dullest man in the Commons and it does not matter because the Leader of the Opposition is ex officio a significant figure who has six PMQs each week and whose party is invited onto every news and current affairs programme. The LibDems do not have that luxury.

I genuinely believe that the LibDems would have performed a fair bit better under Vince Cable had he fought the 2019 election as Leader. Hindsight is a wonderful gift, but he ended up stepping down at precisely the wrong time! Had he stayed, I suspect the party could have managed circa 20 seats.

justin124

matt said:

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

I disagree there - Wilson was charismatic..
Thorpe also had much less gravitas than his predecessor - Jo Grimond.

Ring the bell and the simpleton bigot arrives.

The pot calling the kettle ..

MaxPB

Having has a drunken think about it, I think if I were a democrat I'd vote for Bernie. The US has enough checks and balances that he wouldn't be an effective elected dictator and he seems to be the only democrat that stands for something other than not losing.

So yeah Bernie, you'd have my vote.

HYUFD

justin124 said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Yes - that makes sense. You are also quite correct to counsel fellow Tories against complacency in the likely event of Starmer - or Nandy - becoming Labour leader

Yes staying in power longer than 10 years is hard for any party unless the opposition remains too extreme for most voters

HYUFD

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

Their vote fell 1% to 17.8%, and their seats went from 18 to 46.

In their target seats their vote rose significantly as the main non Tory alternative

I was agreeing with you

I know

HYUFD

https://twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1220795596707155969?s=20

Mexicanpete

DecrepiterJohnL said:

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

I disagree there - Wilson was charismatic..
Thorpe also had much less gravitas than his predecessor - Jo Grimond.

The LibDems do not need gravitas right now. Vince Cable had gravitas. Where did it get them?

Labour looks set to elect the dullest man in the Commons and it does not matter because the Leader of the Opposition is ex officio a significant figure who has six PMQs each week and whose party is invited onto every news and current affairs programme. The LibDems do not have that luxury.

Be careful what you wish for. The spectre of what seems to be a Tory Manchurian candidate in the form of Rebecca Long Bailey has not been vanquished yet. Should she become Leader of the Opposition everyone outside the Conservative Party and its apparent subordinate Trojan horse group, Momentum will regret that the dull man failed at the final hurdle.

SandyRentool

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

squareroot2

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

NO

RochdalePioneers

Evening all! The LibDem leadership should be simple - Ed Davey as the only one with any track record to talk about. Especially when Labour have Wrong-Daily imposed on them as leader.

Quincel

It feels like there were many more CLP meetings done by this time last night. I take it this means they are mostly avoiding Friday nights out of respect to their Jewish members...

Omnium

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

TOPPING

fpt

rcs1000 said:

HYUFD said:

https://twitter.com/MPIainDS/status/1220742567781904391?s=20

That's just plain weird that is.

- We must stop low skilled EU migration

by...

- Increasing the skills of British workers

Is IDS saying that Brits are so low skilled that they can't compete with low skilled EU workers without lots of additional training?

LOL

kicorse

MaxPB said:

Having has a drunken think about it, I think if I were a democrat I'd vote for Bernie. The US has enough checks and balances that he wouldn't be an effective elected dictator and he seems to be the only democrat that stands for something other than not losing.

So yeah Bernie, you'd have my vote.

I initially read that as "he seems to be the only democrat that stands for something other than losing"

I was talking to a very intelligent and politically engaged American friend the other day, and I was expressing the view that the Democrats were going to lose because the lesson they've drawn from 2016 is that the way to defeat bigotry is to shout even louder at it.

I was expecting her to get angry with me for saying that. Instead, she said that at a subconscious level the Democrats don't want to win. I checked and she really meant it. She may have a point.

TOPPING

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Sunil_Prasannan

StevenWhaley said:

BluestBlue said:

There are 11 LD MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every month, with month 12 left unfilled to represent the anarchist perspective?

It's hardly going to work out any worse than what they actually have planned, is it?

There are 365 Conservative MPs. Why not just rotate the leadership every day, with 29th February left unfilled to represent the vacuous nature of the party?

"The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition."
- Boris in The Daily Telegraph, 25 September 2003.

Nigelb

RochdalePioneers said:

Evening all! The LibDem leadership should be simple - Ed Davey as the only one with any track record to talk about. Especially when Labour have Wrong-Daily imposed on them as leader.

Seems right to me, FWIW.

Mexicanpete

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

You forget than Len doesn't want a Labour government. Just think of the impact a high taxation Labour government would have on earners with high value non-monetary perks. People like Len. RLB it is then, no chance of her becoming PM!

SandyRentool

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

Nigelb

Bloody hell...and we’re concerned about the new police surveillance in London:
https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/city-of-san-diego-awarded-ge-mass-surveillance-contract-without-oversight/

TOPPING

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

Bonjour.

RochdalePioneers

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

rcs1000

MaxPB said:

Having has a drunken think about it, I think if I were a democrat I'd vote for Bernie. The US has enough checks and balances that he wouldn't be an effective elected dictator and he seems to be the only democrat that stands for something other than not losing.

So yeah Bernie, you'd have my vote.

If you were a "democrat", or if you were a "Democrat"?

I ask, because it's quite important in the context of your comment.

Omnium

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

What are you picking at here?

Leave/Remain may well be over.

bigjohnowls

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Wouldn't you be better off in Starmers Labour?

MikeSmithson

Just been watching the Senate impeachment trial live. Its riveting.

squareroot2

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

Why wouldn't you be? I voted remain, but equally important was stopping Corbyn. I voted LD in a safe Tory seat, just to show my disapproval, but in retrospect a Tory Govt was inevitable. We will never elect a hard left Govt, and NPEXMP ought to have known that.

bigjohnowls

squareroot2 said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

Why wouldn't you be? I voted remain, but equally important was stopping Corbyn. I voted LD in a safe Tory seat, just to show my disapproval, but in retrospect a Tory Govt was inevitable. We will never elect a hard left Govt, and NPEXMP ought to have known that.

We nearly did in 2017

RochdalePioneers

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Wouldn't you be better off in Starmers Labour?

1. Starmer won't win - the cult aren't about to hand the keys over just because people vote for someone else. They'll rig it as they rig everything else
2. Starmer like the rest of them is triangulating to the nutters - apparently they have to be nice to Corbyn and all He stands for

I'm staying yellow

Omnium

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Pioneered in Rochdale, but applicable to the world

(I'm very much a Tory, but I'd love to have a realistic choice. I'l still vote Tory though to be honest)

squareroot2

bigjohnowls said:

squareroot2 said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

Why wouldn't you be? I voted remain, but equally important was stopping Corbyn. I voted LD in a safe Tory seat, just to show my disapproval, but in retrospect a Tory Govt was inevitable. We will never elect a hard left Govt, and NPEXMP ought to have known that.

We nearly did in 2017

no we did not

AndreaParma_82

Alyn and Deeside CLP : Starmer/Rayner
Ashton CLP: Long Bailey/Rayner
South West Hertfordshire CLP: Long Bailey/Rayner
Leeds Central CLP: Long Bailey/Burgon
Bristol North West CLP: Long Bailey/Rayner
Pontypridd CLP: Starmer/Rayner
Bexhill and Battle: Long Bailey/Butler

SandyRentool

Omnium said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

What are you picking at here?

Leave/Remain may well be over.

I'm just trying to troll HYUFD. And failing.

dodrade

kicorse said:

FF43 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

Now the Tory Party has turned into a monster would you want to be reminded that you were once allied to it?

The Coalition was a real problem for Jo Swinson during the election campaign. They thought the country had moved on from that, but they were wrong. Can't blame them for wanting to ensure it doesn't happen again.

It's a shame though. The decision to go into that coalition did seem to come from a sense of responsibility towards good governance, even if some of the austerity policies they subsequently agreed to were shameful. That's in contrast to their behaviour over the last year, when a much softer - and less harmful - Brexit would probably have been possible without their unprincipled Remain-vote-hunting extremism.

They came second in the European Elections on a "Bollocks to Brexit" platform after six million people had signed the petition to revoke Article 50. Labour's policy satisfied no one as politics became increasingly polarised. Opinion polls showed a narrow but consistent majority in favour of remain. It was not unreasonable for the Lib Dems to expect to gain seats in such circumstances. Unfortunately for them the more people saw of Jo Swinson the less they liked her and their anti-brexit stance made them de facto allies of the least popular opposition leader in history scaring away the Tory remainers they were counting on in the south of England.

If the Lib Dems had backed an October election when no deal was still on the table they would probably have done much better.

Sunil_Prasannan

bigjohnowls said:

squareroot2 said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

Why wouldn't you be? I voted remain, but equally important was stopping Corbyn. I voted LD in a safe Tory seat, just to show my disapproval, but in retrospect a Tory Govt was inevitable. We will never elect a hard left Govt, and NPEXMP ought to have known that.

We nearly did in 2017

If by "nearly" you mean Corbyn was 55 seats short...

Omnium

SandyRentool said:

Omnium said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed at home.

The Conservatives polled just under 14 million votes last month - I think Major beat Johnson by about 100,000 albeit on a much better turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

What are you picking at here?

Leave/Remain may well be over.

I'm just trying to troll HYUFD. And failing.

Ah - I see.

Drifting into the it-is-what-it-is thing.

Interesting times!

Sunil_Prasannan

MikeSmithson said:

Just been watching the Senate impeachment trial live. Its riveting.

Is it as riveting as test cricket?

squareroot2

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MikeSmithson said:

Just been watching the Senate impeachment trial live. Its riveting.

Is it as riveting as test cricket?

how far are the paper planes going?

bigjohnowls

RochdalePioneers said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Wouldn't you be better off in Starmers Labour?

1. Starmer won't win - the cult aren't about to hand the keys over just because people vote for someone else. They'll rig it as they rig everything else
2. Starmer like the rest of them is triangulating to the nutters - apparently they have to be nice to Corbyn and all He stands for

I'm staying yellow

I am not voting for RLB and I would be surprised if she wins.

bigjohnowls

Sunil_Prasannan said:

bigjohnowls said:

squareroot2 said:

SandyRentool said:

TOPPING said:

SandyRentool said:

HYUFD said:

squareroot2 said:

HYUFD said:

stodge said:

HYUFD said:

Yes of course the LDs made a big advance in seats in 1997 despite little rise in national voteshare in their target seats as centrist Tory voters felt more able to vote LD and risk a Blair premiership than they did a Kinnock one

The key to 1997 was Blair was able to convince millions of disillusioned Conservatives the Labour Party he led was a non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left.

Some ex-Tories went to Labour, others went LD and others stayed ter turnout.

The LDs polled just under 4 million votes last month compared to just under 6 million in 1992.

IF the Party can recover back to the high teens I think it perfectly possible 30 seats could be won.

If the new Labour leader is Starmer maybe, less likely if it is Long Bailey

why?

As Tory Remainers would be more willing to vote LD and risk a Starmer Government than a Long Bailey, Corbynista one

Aren't you the only Tory Remainer left on PB?

Depends what you mean. Define your terms.

Someone who voted Remain and is still a member of the Conservatives.

Why wouldn't you be? I voted remain, but equally important was stopping Corbyn. I voted LD in a safe Tory seat, just to show my disapproval, but in retrospect a Tory Govt was inevitable. We will never elect a hard left Govt, and NPEXMP ought to have known that.

We nearly did in 2017

If by "nearly" you mean Corbyn was 55 seats short...

Mot of being a minority PM about 20 short of that

Mexicanpete

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Wouldn't you be better off in Starmers Labour?

1. Starmer won't win - the cult aren't about to hand the keys over just because people vote for someone else. They'll rig it as they rig everything else
2. Starmer like the rest of them is triangulating to the nutters - apparently they have to be nice to Corbyn and all He stands for

I'm staying yellow

I am not voting for RLB and I would be surprised if she wins.

Don't forget it is one man,one vote. And Len is that man!

Omnium

squareroot2 said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

MikeSmithson said:

Just been watching the Senate impeachment trial live. Its riveting.

Is it as riveting as test cricket?

how far are the paper planes going?

Can one be permitted to like both?

Test Cricket is the most riveting thing in the world. When you care 5 days disappear.

Paper planes are the most elegant things in the world. Every schoolboy sees his plane look down on him with disdain, and then crash.

bigjohnowls

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Wouldn't you be better off in Starmers Labour?

1. Starmer won't win - the cult aren't about to hand the keys over just because people vote for someone else. They'll rig it as they rig everything else
2. Starmer like the rest of them is triangulating to the nutters - apparently they have to be nice to Corbyn and all He stands for

I'm staying yellow

I am not voting for RLB and I would be surprised if she wins.

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Wouldn't you be better off in Starmers Labour?

1. Starmer won't win - the cult aren't about to hand the keys over just because people vote for someone else. They'll rig it as they rig everything else
2. Starmer like the rest of them is triangulating to the nutters - apparently they have to be nice to Corbyn and all He stands for

I'm staying yellow

I am not voting for RLB and I would be surprised if she wins.

Don't forget it is one man,one vote. And Len is that man!

If you think RLB is going to win she is available at odds against.

kicorse

dodrade said:

kicorse said:

FF43 said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Speaking to the Lib Dems I know* all of them want someone not associated with the coalition which seems odd to me.

*Small sample I know.

Now the Tory Party has turned into a monster would you want to be reminded that you were once allied to it?

The Coalition was a real problem for Jo Swinson during the election campaign. They thought the country had moved on from that, but they were wrong. Can't blame them for wanting to ensure it doesn't happen again.

It's a shame though. The decision to go into that coalition did seem to come from a sense of responsibility towards good governance, even if some of the austerity policies they subsequently agreed to were shameful. That's in contrast to their behaviour over the last year, when a much softer - and less harmful - Brexit would probably have been possible without their unprincipled Remain-vote-hunting extremism.

They came second in the European Elections on a "Bollocks to Brexit" platform after six million people had signed the petition to revoke Article 50. Labour's policy satisfied no one as politics became increasingly polarised. Opinion polls showed a narrow but consistent majority in favour of remain. It was not unreasonable for the Lib Dems to expect to gain seats in such circumstances. Unfortunately for them the more people saw of Jo Swinson the less they liked her and their anti-brexit stance made them de facto allies of the least popular opposition leader in history scaring away the Tory remainers they were counting on in the south of England.

If the Lib Dems had backed an October election when no deal was still on the table they would probably have done much better.

I think that's largely correct.

I was lamenting the fact that behaving responsibly in 2010 has done them so much long-term electoral harm, whereas behaving irresponsibly in 2019 will not. The fact that they might reasonably have expected to do better in the general election than they did, with their strategy, doesn't change that.

I voted Lib Dem in 2005 and 2010. Despite my horror at some of the austerity policies, I might have voted for them in 2015 if I weren't in a Lab/Con marginal. I cannot envisage ever voting for them again, and I am now a member of the Labour party.

There are lots of factors in that, but the moment when I (as a Remainer) lost all respect for them was the indicative votes in March, which were the last opportunity (except perhaps the cross-party talks) to prevent disaster. The Lib Dems made the same electoral analysis you have just made, and decided to put their narrow interests ahead of what was best for the country. If they had voted for, or even abstained on, Ken Clarke's proposal (for example), we could be in a very different place right now.

Alphabet_Soup

AndreaParma_82 said:

Alyn and Deeside CLP : Starmer/Rayner
Ashton CLP: Long Bailey/Rayner
South West Hertfordshire CLP: Long Bailey/Rayner
Leeds Central CLP: Long Bailey/Burgon
Bristol North West CLP: Long Bailey/Rayner
Pontypridd CLP: Starmer/Rayner
Bexhill and Battle: Long Bailey/Butler

Turkeys and Salmon: Christmas Day/Boxing Day

Mexicanpete

bigjohnowls said:

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Wouldn't you be better off in Starmers Labour?

1. Starmer won't win - the cult aren't about to hand the keys over just because people vote for someone else. They'll rig it as they rig everything else
2. Starmer like the rest of them is triangulating to the nutters - apparently they have to be nice to Corbyn and all He stands for

I'm staying yellow

I am not voting for RLB and I would be surprised if she wins.

Don't forget it is one man,one vote. And Len is that man!

If you think RLB is going to win she is available at odds against.

I have her at 9/2

nico67

Very good of the EU to release details of the protocol for Northern Ireland explaining clearly what’s happening with the checks .

Bozo still lying saying there won’t be any checks . He could tell Leavers the earth is flat and they’d believe him !

Mexicanpete

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

Mexicanpete said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

bigjohnowls said:

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Wouldn't you be better off in Starmers Labour?

1. Starmer won't win - the cult aren't about to hand the keys over just because people vote for someone else. They'll rig it as they rig everything else
2. Starmer like the rest of them is triangulating to the nutters - apparently they have to be nice to Corbyn and all He stands for

I'm staying yellow

I am not voting for RLB and I would be surprised if she wins.

Don't forget it is one man,one vote. And Len is that man!

If you think RLB is going to win she is available at odds against.

I have her at 9/2

geoffw

justin124 said:

rcs1000 said:

justin124 said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

stodge said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

The LibDems are officially an insignificant party. They don't matter any more. For decades up to 2015, as Britain's third party the LibDems were on every producer's Rolodex (ask your granny) for when Labour and Conservative were not enough. Now the SNP are our third party. The LibDems are fourth, barely in front of the DUP and Sinn Fein.

All of which means they need another Chat Show Charlie who can get on the wireless and telly not because they are important but because they are entertaining; they have something interesting to say and an amusing way of saying it.

Does that sound like Ed Davey? Or any of the others?

You could have said the same after 1970 when the Liberal Party had 6 MPs but in Feb 1974 the vote nearly tripled.

As @HYUFD mentioned the Party improved its position significantly in a number of seats last month. It is also traditionally the home for disillusioned Conservatives (and I suspect there will be some, not many at first but more with the passage of time).

It is possible a Starmer-led Labour party will start clawing back the poll leads - we'll see. I do think there are plenty of Conservative Council seats to be cropped, especially in 2021.

If you want to write off the LDs in your own mind, be my guest but the Party is very far from moribund.

And what happened between 1970 and 1974? The Liberals did have their Chat Show Charlie of the day in the shape of Jeremy Thorpe, who was far more charismatic than either Heath or Wilson. To repeat my point, that is what the party needs now.

I disagree there - Wilson was charismatic..
Thorpe also had much less gravitas than his predecessor - Jo Grimond.

Interesting, I thought Thorpe was pretty charismatic. (Based, I admit, solely on having seen a few things on YT)

He was very much seen as a 'Dandy' figure - but not taken particularly seriously beyond Feb/March 1974.Jo Grimond had much more intellectual depth.

Grimond was the most charismatic politician I have seen in the flesh.

dr_spyn

RochdalePioneers said:

Omnium said:

There are no LD politicians now.

Davey and Swinson, and the rest are just signaling. Cable was the worst of them all.

It seems strange, given how meek and mild he was, but the LDs ended when Clegg left.

Perhaps. My local LibDem branch largely resembles the cast of Waiting for God.

I'm planning to rebuild from the bottom up

Former Rochdale Councillor wins in Bath.

http://rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-features/2/news-headlines/110710/former-rochdale-councillor-wera-hobhouse-elected-mp-for-bath