For our resident Liberals..6th in Barnsley..

[GenevaSaint]

A blip in what are always difficult and unpredicable events or a statement of intent from the electorate now the planning for the cuts is starting to hit the public....

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12645090

 

"The party finished behind UKIP, the BNP and an independent as its share of the vote dropped to just over 4% (from 17%)."

 

"It was a very safe Labour seat. Labour got a huge majority on an abysmally-low turnout and everybody else was left to pick up the pieces"

 

"In truth it was a no contest for any non-Labour candidate,"

 

The fall in the Lib Dems' vote share is the largest in a by-election since 1989

[Joensuu]

Absolutely. This is evidence that Clegg made the wrong decision in putting his self before the views of his party by teaming up with Cameron. Unlike Labour/Tory voters, liberals won't continue to vote for people who have let them down.

[dune]

Fantastic result for my party - UKIP.

 

http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2156-jane-thumps-tories-lib-dems-in-barnsley

[Joensuu]

Fantastic result for my party - UKIP.

 

http://www.ukip.org/content/latest-news/2156-jane-thumps-tories-lib-dems-in-barnsley

 

Yup, UKIP gained of 1,200 votes... (wonder how many of those defected from the BNP, who lost 1,900 votes?).

 

Tories lose 4,300 votes.

Lib Dems lose 5,300 votes.

Labour lose 2,700 votes.

 

Turnout dropped by 20%

 

All in all a demonstration of ambivalence by the electorate, highlighting one of the weaknesses in our FPTP system - irrespective of who you support, why vote at all when the seat is going to end up as a safe win for Labour? Should the votes of the people of Barnsley count for less than people who live in a contested seat? (on second thoughts... don't answer that!)

[dune]

(on second thoughts... don't answer that!)

 

I wasn't going to.

[JustMike]

Absolutely. This is evidence that Clegg made the wrong decision in putting his self before the views of his party by teaming up with Cameron. Unlike Labour/Tory voters, liberals won't continue to vote for people who have let them down.

 

this.

[dronskisaint]

:lol:I see another 100 years in the wilderness...but I'm sure they'll think that a brief spell as Tory *****es will have made that worthwhile.

 

See the left wing of the Tory party came second...did you see that pan.....that flash?

[Lord Duckhunter]

People dont seem to be able to get their head round the fact that Lib/Dem election policy pre elction boxed them into a corner post election. They have spent years telling us about how coalition works and has worked abroad, and also spent months before the election stressing they would deal with whichever party had the largest madate from the people. They did this to ensure that their votes held up in England (mainly the south and south east), because had they said they would only deal with Labour, they would have lost a vast amount of seats to the Tories in "middle" England.

 

Once the election result maths ruled out a coalition with labour, none of the remaining options were attractive to them at all. A minority Tory Govt proped up by a "supply and confidence" agreement with the Lib/dems, would have meant the Lib/Dems waving through a Tory budget and any confidence votes. They would in effect be propping up the Tories, voting with the cuts, but receiving no concessions in return (an even worse senerio than they face now). They could have voted down the queens speech and therefore triggered a new election.In this senerio, they could hardly bang on about coalition policies and working together, when they had refused to do so when given the chance. Their vote would collapse in areas where Labour couldn't win and they would lose seats in traditional "Tory" areas. Remember in this senerio, there would have been no cuts before a second election, and the Tories could well have been rewarded with a majority as happened with labour back in 1974.

 

So the "least worst" option for the Lib/Dems was a full coalition with the Tories and the hope that they will get rewarded if the economy picks up in 5 years. They also get to implement some of their policies and also get to show that they can work within a coalition.It is a high risk strategy, but far better than any of the others.

 

Whilst we have FPTP, the best result for the Lib/Dems is always a Labour / Tory majority or a hung parliament with Labour having the most seats, anything outside of that will always cause them problems.

 

The result of this by election should not be taken as any sort of indicator of the demise of Lib/Dems. Thatcher used to regulary lose by elections, as did Blair.

 

Lib/Dem support is always going to drop if they're in a coalition. If it's with the Tories, they'll lose Labour leaning supporters and if it's with Labour they'll lose Tory leaning supporters. I've no doubt the sensible ones amongst them would have factored in poor by elections and poll ratings for the next 2/3 years, when deciding what to do post election.

Edited 5 March, 2011 by Lord Duckhunter

[hypochondriac]

Libs are a waste of time anyway.

[Dog]

Libs are a waste of time anyway.

 

You are one sad individual.

[hypochondriac]

You are one sad individual.

 

.

[Wade Garrett]

Clegg is paying the price for his lack of moral conviction and downright two-facedness. The same goes for Vince Cable, who has turned out to be a bit of a clown.

 

Liberal activists will find it very difficult to get their message across at the next election. They'll lose a lot of votes from the middle ground and students.