Time for Nick Clegg to go

Home Forum Chat Forum Time for Nick Clegg to go

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 48 total)
  • Time for Nick Clegg to go
  • Premier Icon nickc
    Subscriber

    Overall swing disappointing for them, in very safe Conservative seats, gains have been better. Weird night though

    Premier Icon Coyote
    Subscriber

    Good point about the policies over personalities. However, this is probably the first time that Nick Clegg has had a decent platform and exposure to the general public. I'd say that he needs to stay on and build for the future.

    Premier Icon Stoner
    Subscriber

    He hasnt even raised enough seats to make a Lib-Lab coalition a viable alternative to a Conservative minority government.

    Conservative government, for, oh, about 9 months I reckon and then we do it all again.

    And Scotland should be given independence?

    grumm
    Member

    Just goes to show how we desperately need electoral reform – 23% or so of votes but what percentage of seats? Blatantly loads of people bottled out at the last minute of voting Lib Dem as they felt their vote would be wasted.

    emma82
    Member

    I think it's good, libs cudnt ever do it this time, they weren't prepared if they did get it but now they now they have a raised profile they can continue to build themselves up and in four/five years time people will truely have a third choice.

    hora
    Member

    ernie, cruel but true.

    It would be rude to allow the Lib-dems to form any government considering the amount of votes that they actually mustered.

    Yep,

    Tories form minority Govt.

    Everyone sees that Cameron is worse than Brown.

    Another election next year with a different Labour leader.

    Electoral reform is on the agenda with a Labour win or another hung Parliament.

    Another hung Parliament with Labour back in the driving seat.

    Electoral reform.

    We all live happily ever after.*

    *Assuming nothing important happens in the rest of the world to change things here.

    hora
    Member

    Another election next year with a different Labour leader.

    With Labour saying the Tories are preceding over unprecedented cuts etc to our great nation..

    It would be rude to allow the Lib-dems to form any government considering the amount of votes that they actually mustered.

    Come on! Just under 23% – between 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 of the people don't count?

    If there is one single conclusion from this election it is that there is no place for adversarial politics in this country today.

    What's so bad about people negotiating big decisions anyway?

    Premier Icon tomdebruin
    Subscriber

    Hang on a minute, look at the number of votes. LibDem has done extremely well and number of seats is not representative of the number of votes.

    Premier Icon Garry_Lager
    Subscriber

    They're not a credible party of government at the moment, and given the colossal disappointment of their performance today, it's hard to see them ever getting things together. Full credit to Clegg for grasping his opportunity in the debates and mixing it up, but too many of their policies didn't stand up to scrutiny.

    Was sure they would take my constituency (Edinburgh Sth) which was ultra marginal, but they couldn't even manage that. The labour guy hung on by an arse hair.

    grumm
    Member

    It really is a fairly pathetic showing by the Tories – the fact that they couldn't beat a fairly unpopular leader after 13 years of Labour, one who happens to have been in charge during a world financial crisis, and with the ridiculous level of support Cameron received in the media. Virtually all the papers yesterday were loudly cheerleading for Cameron, with the Mail claiming not voting for him would bring about armageddon. They really can't claim to have any kind of mandate.

    Oh yeah, and looking at the maps – can the north of England, Scotland and Wales please form a separate country

    Premier Icon vinnyeh
    Subscriber

    Conservative government, for, oh, about 9 months I reckon and then we do it all again.

    Why? Does parliamentary voting for non-government held seats tend to automatically oppose the government?

    uplink
    Member

    Why? Does parliamentary voting for non-government held seats tend to automatically oppose the government?

    No, but sooner or later with a minority gov they'll face a vote of no confidence over some issue or other – & I think there's going to be lots of potential issues to cause this in the near future

    looking at the numbers, I'm not sure that we can come out of this with any long term workable solution, whoever gets to form a government is going to struggle.

    HeathenWoods
    Member

    +1 grum

    Conservative government, for, oh, about 9 months I reckon and then we do it all again.

    Not bad, my guess is that they'll get 11 months – who's going to risk depending on their core support in a low winter turnout at the moment? The vote of no confidence will come but Labour will have to go through a leadership contest, s/he will have to establish themselves in the media so maybe even 14 months?

    WackoAK
    Member

    Votes per seat

    Conservative – 34,756
    Labour – 33,301
    LibDem – 124,182

    Democracy in action….

    In my own constituency Labour got 51.6% of the vote so my vote was utterly worthless.

    Premier Icon Garry_Lager
    Subscriber

    Aye, if Labour can manage to get Gordon to f_ck off they will swan any quick election that gets called. 9 months of Dave making a show of himself, Darling or Milliband find their testes and tell Gordon to get on his bike, and the natural party of government returns to lead us all to prosperity and the broad sunlit uplands ๐Ÿ™‚

    simonk
    Member

    I seriously doubt any of the parties will really work together and actually work for the good of the people, i can see it just decending into a mire and the everyone suffering even more.
    Looking at the results i did expect (hope) for a better showing for the Lib Dems.

    uplink
    Member

    Clegg lost his way on his immigration & European policies

    He mis-judged the popular mood & failed to explain himself adequately

    ernie_lynch
    Member

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8666128.stm

    With most results in, the Lib Dem vote is up 0.9% on 2005, Labour down 6.5% and the Conservatives up 4%.

    So up less than one percent then ?

    The LibDems should have been raking in the votes from disillusioned voters.

    Maybe the British electorate is more interested in "policies" rather than "personalities" after all ?

    clubber
    Member

    Clegg lost his way on his immigration & European policies

    Depressingly I think you're right, at least in the reason why they didn't get more seats than they did. I really dispair that immigration is seen as such a big issue by people.

    juan
    Member

    Well considering the turnover has been barely above 65% that looks like a fail to me…

    cynic-al
    Member

    Shirely the point is that the swings after the telly debates are in the end a bit meaningless, rather than blaming Clegg for a good show but voters then not reflecting polls at the time.

    immigration: and yet BNP and UKIP tanked. Was it really an issue?

    Talkemada
    Member

    With Labour saying the Tories are preceding over unprecedented cuts etc to our great nation..

    You were at school when the Tories were in power weren't you Hora? ๐Ÿ™„

    clubber
    Member

    immigration: and yet BNP and UKIP tanked. Was it really an issue?

    Did they really though – much the same as the Lib Dems, they got larger percentages which didn't translate into seats (thank god in the case of the BNP…) because of our first past the post system

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Yep, according to the BBC scoreboard at the mo, the BNP made greater percentage vote gains than the Lib Dems! (1.2% versus 1%)

    Geronimo
    Member

    The Lib-Dems were victims of the ludicrous first-past-the-post system, again. Principles are all very well, but it is a FACT that if you live in a constituency with an intransigent, herd mentality (ie. MOST constituencies), a vote for anyone other than the incumbent party is a wasted vote.

    Our system appears to be rooted in the days when the (few, male, influential) voters in a village elected a local chap (Tory or Whig) to go and vote on their behalf down in 'that London' and news would occasionally filter back to the town.

    In recent decades the traditional working class voted for Labour and 'posh' people for the Tories. New-Labour kept the old voters (because the word "Labour" was still on the ballot?) , but also sucked-in many of the Thatcher fans.

    Nowadays we can email the Prime Minister, conduct an internet campaign, get onto TV news etc. I don't really value my local MP as the city council are responsible for much of the 'local' issues, not a bloke who sits in Westminster towing the party line.

    tiger_roach
    Member

    It really is a fairly pathetic showing by the Tories

    Well going by what I read here a lot of people are more interested in their hatred of what happened in the 80s than Labour's recent record so the Tories have got a lot to battle against.

    If they had won outright there'd just be more hatred as they attempted to sort out the deficit – Labour were over-spending so we were living in an unsustainable society and no we have to pay.

    Clegg lost his way on his immigration & European policies

    Actually I think the Lib Dems are ahead of their time on immigration, but probably didn't explain themselves well enough.

    I thought it was the low point of the debates for the Lib Dems when Cameron and Brown both agreed that the Lib Dem "amnesty" for immigrants was a bad idea. Clegg should have rebutted that much harder given that that isn't the Lib Dem policy.

    In fact the Lib Dems are the only party to have grasped the nettle on immigration by accepting that there is no way that we are ever going to get rid of long term illegal immigrants, given that we just don't know who they are or where they live and work.

    The vast majority of immigrants to the this country are from within Europe and are legal immigrants, not illegal ones.

    sharkbait
    Member

    The problem with proportional representation though is that it would probably lead to more hung parliaments.
    There are arguements each way but I sometimes think that a two party system is better overall. ๐Ÿ™„

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    The lib dems suffered in the end because of the media scare mongering about a hung parliment.
    If so much of the country is so stupid as to vote for who they are told to vote for rather than thinking for themselves, then the old saying is true, the country gets the government it deserves.

    The problem with proportional representation though is that it would probably lead to more hung parliaments.

    That's the whole point really. It means you don't get mad policies like the Poll Tax or the Invasion of Iraq brought in because of the ideology of the PM.

    MSP, are you really a Member of the Scottish Parliament?

    Premier Icon MSP
    Subscriber

    ooooh I didn't see that, do I get to claim some expenses.

    grumm
    Member

    This shows very clearly why the current voting system is bollocks.

    http://www.voterpower.org.uk/

    clubber
    Member

    Indeed – my vote counted for 0.063 of a vote. Pretty pointless.

    I did until recently think that PR was a bad thing but these days, I think our politicians are typically so bad (and this is made worse by the result which suggests that people don't blame labour for massively overspending during boom times and not putting anything aside, irrespective of how good/bad you think the rest of their time in power has been. As such, unlike the Tories, there's a realistic chance that they'll get back in when a coalition breaks down and be just as bad as they are now but with a nicer, smilier figure head) that anything that helps keep them in check is probably a good thing IMO.

    fatboyslo
    Member

    No way is it time for Nick to go … though I guess both Gordon and Dave would wish he would.
    Party Gain Loss Net Votes % +/-%
    Conservative 290 94 3 +91 10,135,228 36.1 +3.9
    Labour 247 2 87 -85 8,194,900 29.2 -6.3
    Liberal Democrat 51 7 13 -6 6,421,841 22.9 +1.0

    Only in the current flawed system could a party get more votes and actually get less seats !

    It is now time for REAL CHANGE, get rid of the first past the post conflict politics which hold the country back and instigate real Democratic 'work together for the best ' type politics.

    And don't let Gordon and Dave fool you on immigration … there is absolutely NOTHING which can be done about the vast majority of it as it is from within the EU, only Nick was brave enough to tell the truth on it and only Nick has the right plan to tackle any such issues in the future ……

    Oh well I guess if history is anything to go by at least we won't have to wait another 5 years for it to all happen again ๐Ÿ˜‰

    BUT
    Voter power in Harrogate & Knaresborough

    0.161
    Constituency marginality
    Very safe …. OOOPS ! think they got that bit wrong … though I just can;t see why Cons won it back after making such a mess at loal level ๐Ÿ™

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 48 total)

The topic ‘Time for Nick Clegg to go’ is closed to new replies.