Emmeline wrote:What's the view on why the LibDems lost 27 seats to the Tories in GE2015?

The Lib Dems were victims of their own success in repairing the economy and liberating the British people. As every serious political commentator has pointed out, had The Coalition been an option on the ballot paper, it would have won a landslide victory. As it was, voters couldn't vote Lib Dem and risk letting Labour back in, doubly so when it became obvious that a Labour government would be reliant on Scottish separatists, and would probably lead to the destruction of the country. Voting Tory was simply the safest way of keeping Red Ed and Alex Salmond out of Downing Street.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Emmeline wrote:What's the view on why the LibDems lost 27 seats to the Tories in GE2015?

The Lib Dems were victims of their own success in repairing the economy and liberating the British people. As every serious political commentator has pointed out, had The Coalition been an option on the ballot paper, it would have won a landslide victory. As it was, voters couldn't vote Lib Dem and risk letting Labour back in, doubly so when it became obvious that a Labour government would be reliant on Scottish separatists, and would probably lead to the destruction of the country. Voting Tory was simply the safest way of keeping Red Ed and Alex Salmond out of Downing Street.

People could still quite as easily voted Lib Dem in their safer seats and kept a coalition, if the people of the South West had voted the same way as they did last election there would be a Tory-Lib Dem coalition again. So I call bullshit on that

If you're calling it bullshit, then it must be true.

Yes, people could vote Lib Dem, and the Lib Dems could go into coalition with Labour instead. There was no guarantee that the Lib Dems would re-enter coalition with the Tories, especially as that sensible grown-up decision made in the interests of the country cost the Lib Dems so greatly.

Like I said, the only way you could be certain of keeping Red Ed and his would-be puppetmaster Salmond out of Downing Street would be to vote Tory. This is the overwhelming reason why people voted Tory, our canvassing picked up on it, and I'd be surprised if other parties didn't hear the same on the doorstep too.

You've drunk the Tory Kool Aid, SD. Repairing the economy? Liberating the British people? A reality disconnect, or what? Also, there is zero evidence for a ToryDem option on the ballot paper being a sure-fire winner. You might also want to explain how it was that Labour's share of the vote increased over 2010, whilst the Tory share fell. Not that I'm expecting facts to get in the way of anyone's Tory apologisms.

Yes, people could vote Lib Dem, and the Lib Dems could go into coalition with Labour instead. There was no guarantee that the Lib Dems would re-enter coalition with the Tories, especially as that sensible grown-up decision made in the interests of the country cost the Lib Dems so greatly.

Why would anyone assume the Lib Dem's would go into coalition with Labour when they spent the entire campaign saying how well the previous coalition with the Tories worked?.

Unless of course people suspected the Lib Dem's would do or say anything to get into power

Could go into coalition with Labour. Not would. And any government would be a success if it was being wagged by a Lib Dem tail. Labour, Tory, it doesn't matter, we'll work with anyone to deliver a fairer, freer, more equal, more liberal Britain.

Strontium Dog wrote:Could go into coalition with Labour. Not would. And any government would be a success if it was being wagged by a Lib Dem tail. Labour, Tory, it doesn't matter, we'll work with anyone to deliver a fairer, freer, more equal, more liberal Britain.

I agree we add a heart to the Tories and a brain to Labour.

A brain to Labour? Are you kidding? Sadly, no I don't think you are.

CarlPierce wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:Could go into coalition with Labour. Not would. And any government would be a success if it was being wagged by a Lib Dem tail. Labour, Tory, it doesn't matter, we'll work with anyone to deliver a fairer, freer, more equal, more liberal Britain.

I agree we add a heart to the Tories and a brain to Labour.

Possibly but your heart & brain are minuscule in comparison to the size of your bowels.

The problem with that slogan (and again, it isn't original but cribbed from elsewhere) was that it was a tacit admission they even saw themselves as being dumber than the tories who had quite obviously been calling all the shots the whole time.

So their own election strategy was not only exactly the kind of counterfactual patronising and substance-free bilge that voters roundly reject, but also taken at face value it was actually yet another reason not to vote for them

I can see the LibDem character on the Yellow Brick Road, off to see the Wizard, in hope that he'll give them some more brains, & some compassion (heart), but also a spine & a long-overdue colonic irrigation.

CarlPierce wrote:

Strontium Dog wrote:Could go into coalition with Labour. Not would. And any government would be a success if it was being wagged by a Lib Dem tail. Labour, Tory, it doesn't matter, we'll work with anyone to deliver a fairer, freer, more equal, more liberal Britain.

I agree we add a heart to the Tories and a brain to Labour.

Well adding bits to other parties didn't work out so well for the Lib Dem's.
Let's face it the British people do not like coalition government, they like winners and losers

No one in their right mind is going to get into a coalition government with anyone in the near future (not in a FPTP system anyway)

chairman bill wrote:I can see the LibDem character on the Yellow Brick Road, off to see the Wizard, in hope that he'll give them some more brains, & some compassion (heart), but also a spine & a long-overdue colonic irrigation.

That's the other problem with it, the remaining wizard of oz character was looking for courage - which is exactly the attribute that the spineless yellow tories lacked throughout their years of grabbing their ankles for the blue tories, their unprincipled cowardice being among the last things that they should have been reminding the electorate about going into the election.

chairman bill wrote:You've drunk the Tory Kool Aid, SD. Repairing the economy? Liberating the British people? A reality disconnect, or what? Also, there is zero evidence for a ToryDem option on the ballot paper being a sure-fire winner. You might also want to explain how it was that Labour's share of the vote increased over 2010, whilst the Tory share fell. Not that I'm expecting facts to get in the way of anyone's Tory apologisms.

Not only did the vote share of both parties of the 2010-15 coalition fall, but so did their combined number of seats, as the voters decided that in delivering their landslide to "the coalition" the best course of action was to return the Tories without the supposed benefits of a moderating coalition partner.

mrjonno wrote:
No one in their right mind is going to get into a coalition government with anyone in the near future (not in a FPTP system anyway)

You've made this silly assertion before. The next time the circumstances exist, i.e. an election result where no party is able to form a government, parties will enter into a coalition.

Strontium Dog wrote:

Emmeline wrote:What's the view on why the LibDems lost 27 seats to the Tories in GE2015?

The Lib Dems were victims of their own success in repairing the economy and liberating the British people. As every serious political commentator has pointed out, had The Coalition been an option on the ballot paper, it would have won a landslide victory. As it was, voters couldn't vote Lib Dem and risk letting Labour back in, doubly so when it became obvious that a Labour government would be reliant on Scottish separatists, and would probably lead to the destruction of the country. Voting Tory was simply the safest way of keeping Red Ed and Alex Salmond out of Downing Street.

Okay. This is a doozy.

First, I think it was just The Independent which backed "The Coalition" remaining in power, I'm not sure "EVERY SERIOUS POLITICAL COMMENTATOR" says, as you claim, the coalition would have won if an option. Which ones? And every??

Second, why is it just Clegg & the libdems who lied during the campaign and implied Salmond was the SNP leader, even after the Tories had realised Sturgeon was the danger and started targetting her? You have NO IDEA how unsulting people in Scotland, women voters, found the libdems over this weird piece of sexism. It didnt help you, it made you look like middle aged white men ignoring the most powerful woman in the country, because she was a woman. It was so obvious in interviews when Clegg would talk about Sturgeon, and we all cringed. It was idiotic. And it wasn't like it was just Clegg - all the Libdems did it, including the Scots like Danny Alexander, and MSPs, so it was clearly a tactic. Staggeringly idiotic, when even those who dont vote SNP are quite proud of Sturgeon and her performance during the election.

ronmcd wrote:...You have NO IDEA how unsulting people in Scotland, women voters, found the libdems over this weird piece of sexism. It didnt help you, it made you look like middle aged white men ignoring the most powerful woman in the country, because she was a woman...

To be fair if they can't simply insult a woman, sexually harass her or imprison her in yarl's wood the yellow tory party is at a complete loss how to respond to her at all.

Aye, McMerkel.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Aye, McMerkel.

I'm genuinely not sure if you think that's clever, or funny, or something else.

ronmcd wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:Aye, McMerkel.

I'm genuinely not sure if you think that's clever, or funny, or something else.

Just the way I see her. It is a compliment. I have a great regard for Angela.

As I said ages ago I actually find them very similar physically and mentally.