Politics - The Next Five Years

[View From The Top]

Not so much policy but in general, what do we think will happen? We have the question of a referendum, Boris v Dave, new Labour leader etc.

[ecuk268]

Cameron's main problems will come from within. He can be held to ransom by his own backbenchers many of whom see him as insufficently right wing. He said in his acceptance speech that he wants to move more to the One Nation type of conservativism, which they will see as a move leftwards.

 

Labour and the Lib Dems will both get new leaders and will go back to the drawing board and wait for Cameron to make mistakes.

 

UKIP are a busted flush and will probably disappear.

 

SNP are interesting. If they get a clear majority in the Scottish elections next year, we can expect a renewed push for independance. I can see Cameron offering some sort of federal setup where they have greatly increased powers but remain part of the UK

[badgerx16]

1) Same old, same old. Political influence will be bought and sold.

2) Tory backbenchers will try to strongarm the front bench.

3) As DC has said he will not serve a third term he won't finish this one. New Tory leader in 3 years, whether it's Boris is open to debate.

4) Labour will regroup, but won't be electable next time around unless the CONs make an almighty cockup.

5) EU referendum is linked to renogiated membership, but I'm not sure how much can actually be negotiated unless we are believed to be ready to pull up the drawbridge.

[pap]

1) Same old, same old. Political influence will be bought and sold.

 

Agree.

 

2) Tory backbenchers will try to strongarm the front bench.

 

One of the most interesting outcomes for me.

 

3) As DC has said he will not serve a third term he won't finish this one. New Tory leader in 3 years, whether it's Boris is open to debate.

 

Not going to be anyone else but Boris at this point, I reckon. Too much backstory for it to be otherwise, and no one really seems to give a crap when the mask drops. Ah, good old Boris. What a humourous chap.

 

 

(sorry. I know it's irrational )

 

4) Labour will regroup, but won't be electable next time around unless the CONs make an almighty cockup.

 

Probably true again.

 

5) EU referendum is linked to renogiated membership, but I'm not sure how much can actually be negotiated unless we are believed to be ready to pull up the drawbridge.

 

Dunno about this. The last debate we had was triggered by one of those petitions. Don't think it'd pass, because Labour et al would probably shout it down, but those 84 backbenchers that supported a referendum last time look a lot more significant.

[aintforever]

I wouldn't put it past the Scottish to vote us out of the EU just to trigger another UK in/out refurendum.

[shurlock]

Not sure how much to draw from this election. A tired electorate has ultimately subscribed to a philosophy of 'if it aint too broke...' and put the incumbents back in on the basis of an incipient recovery. Putting aside whether the recovery is sustainable and the necessity of the Tory response, which was helpfully frontloaded, that record has trumped anything Labour can offer. By the same token, support is perilously conditional: there are few levers with which politicians can influence economic outcomes such that 'competence on the economy' is as much given as earned.

 

Either way, Labour will find it difficult to capitalise. If it wants to gain ground in the South, it will have to move more to right, though that's the opposite required in Jockland. But ultimately it needs to secure both sides. Some may point to the eclectic, broad-church of Blairism as a precedent but that was forged in more optimistic times. Economic uncertainty has deepened divisions while there remains a residual scepticism to false idols trumpeting political triangulation. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

Edited 8 May, 2015 by shurlock

[buctootim]

It was always going to be a tough five years in government for whoever was elected - mostly scrabbling around to find cash to cut the deficit and dealing with the fallout and getting kicked rather than taking the country in a new direction. I seriously doubt the Tories will get re-elected in 5 years time, just as Labour wouldnt have done.

[benjii]

It was always going to be a tough five years in government for whoever was elected - mostly scrabbling around to find cash to cut the deficit and dealing with the fallout and getting kicked rather than taking the country in a new direction. I seriously doubt the Tories will get re-elected in 5 years time, just as Labour wouldnt have done.

 

Not sure about that. Look at the Labour leadership contenders. Most of them make Ed Milliband look statesmanlike and they will probably end up choosing someone awful anyway.

 

If we have the EU in/out then, whatever the vote concludes, UKIP are likely to he viewed as fairly redundant in the next general election. There won't be any SNP glory in failure (no one votes for UKIP on any policy other than EU/immigration) so that's nearly 4million votes up for grabs, a lot of which would probably lean more Tory than Labour.

 

Can't see Labour regaining much in Scotland with the inevitable centrist move that will transpire.

 

Then you've got Boris. Love him or loathe him he will probably obliterate whichever empty suit Labour put forward.

 

Absent a huge Tory-scandal (sleaze, corruption on a grand scale, concentration camps for the poor, etc) I can't see anything other than a further win for them right now.

[Lord Duckhunter]

UKIP are a busted flush and will probably disappear.

 

UK

 

Don't talk nonsense man . They're picking up votes in local elections left right and centre. They have the most MEP's & they've finished second in scores of seats, they ain't going anywhere .

 

There is a need for an English nationalist party and ukip will provide this , especially if labour go for a luvvie like Chucka .

[ecuk268]

[quote=Lord Duckhunter;2182520They have the most MEP's & they've finished second in scores of seats, they ain't going anywhere .

.

 

Maths not your strong point?

 

Tories have 26 MEPs, Labour have 13 and UKIP have 9.

[Guy]

UKIP will remain a force upto the in/out referendum when either the outs win and there will be no need for an anti-EU party, or the ins will win and leave UKIP defeated and without their charismatic leader to keep them in the news.

[SO16_Saint]

Labour are dead for the next 10 years. They won't get close in 2020, close the gap sure, but nowhere nearly enough.

 

UKIP will be redundant too following the in/out vote.

[Wes Tender]

Maths not your strong point?

 

Tories have 26 MEPs, Labour have 13 and UKIP have 9.

 

Really?

According to this, there are 24 UKIP, 20 Labour, 19 Conservative, and a few others from the minor parties.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_%28United_Kingdom%29

[ecuk268]

Really?

According to this, there are 24 UKIP, 20 Labour, 19 Conservative, and a few others from the minor parties.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Parliament_election,_2014_%28United_Kingdom%29

 

It might help if I looked at 2014 instead of 2009.

[Johnny Bognor]

It all depends on the economy and how it recovers. If it does recover well and the man on the street feels better off, it will be a shoe in for the tories next time round.

 

If the economy gets shaky or doesn't recover, the cuts will hurt / bite. Then it will be down to the pain threshold of the electorate combined with how labour re-position themselves.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Maths not your strong point?

 

Tories have 26 MEPs, Labour have 13 and UKIP have 9.

 

Facts not your strong point?

[Lord Duckhunter]

Labour are dead for the next 10 years. They won't get close in 2020, close the gap sure, but nowhere nearly enough.

 

UKIP will be redundant too following the in/out vote.

 

Like the SNP were?

[OldNick]

After reading the election thread and the high brows on there, I think the way to see what is going to happen is to completely expect the opposite of what they say

[Jonnyboy]

After reading the election thread and the high brows on there, I think the way to see what is going to happen is to completely expect the opposite of what they say

 

What a genius.

[CB Fry]

What a genius.

Razor-sharp.

[saint1977]

It all depends on the economy and how it recovers. If it does recover well and the man on the street feels better off, it will be a shoe in for the tories next time round.

 

If the economy gets shaky or doesn't recover, the cuts will hurt / bite. Then it will be down to the pain threshold of the electorate combined with how labour re-position themselves.

 

Probably about right although it depends how much trauma the Tories go through in 2017 when the EU referendum takes place. I'll be strongly campaigning as exiting the EU would have a shocking impact on the economy and our further and higher education systems, not to mention the health services.

 

Cameron and Osborne will be campaigning for staying in the EU I'd have thought. However, the election strategy, whilst very successful yesterday, may backfire when their huge multinational sponsors (who would be furious at a Brexit), key lobby groups like the CBI and the sensible left/centre of the Tory party are at massive loggerheads with the loony Eurosceptic right, which has been reduced by recent retirements but which is still large and could be easily mobilised by a nutter like Liam Fox. The public reception to the 'no' campaign could depend on whether Rupert Murdoch is still alive, Newcorp might be frothing at the mouth less in 2017 if he's dropped off his perch. The Mail is the Mail and Express circulation is too small to matter that much and everyone knows it's an official UKIP paper anyway.

 

Look at the problems Major had after a similar result in 1992, and he had a 20 seat majority, not 5. Moreover, he hadn't promised a referendum either. Concerned that this may distract from continuing the recovery.

 

Labour - need to get back to New Labour/Social Democratic line and work out a strategy for convincing a sceptical public, me included, that they can manage the economy over the longer-term. How they thought that yesterday's disaster wouldn't always be the end game with the two Eds in charge defies belief.

 

LDs - feel sorry for them but Clegg didn't have a vision other than restraining the Tory right, valuable job though that was 2010-15.

[Bloo71]

It was always going to be a tough five years in government for whoever was elected - mostly scrabbling around to find cash to cut the deficit and dealing with the fallout and getting kicked rather than taking the country in a new direction. I seriously doubt the Tories will get re-elected in 5 years time, just as Labour wouldnt have done.

 

I remember political commentators saying that very same thing before the 2010 election, for the very same reasons. I don't think anyone can be confident in predicting anything concerning politics now. I do think that this is the beginning of the end now though for the UK as we know it

[Jonnyboy]

One thing I still don't get is why Lid dem voters went Tory in many places. Can anyone explain? I saw it joked on Facebook that they must've developed Stockholm syndrome.

[hypochondriac]

One thing I still don't get is why Lid dem voters went Tory in many places. Can anyone explain? I saw it joked on Facebook that they must've developed Stockholm syndrome.

 

Because they would prefer Conservatives in charge rather than a minority labour propped up by the snp?

[Jonnyboy]

Because they would prefer Conservatives in charge rather than a minority labour propped up by the snp?

 

I'm talking previous Lib seats that went blue. What made those voters give up on the Lib Dems., At that stage they must have thought a Lib-Lab coalition would be a strong possibility. Surely Lib Dems are more naturally left leaning overall.

[saint1977]

One thing I still don't get is why Lid dem voters went Tory in many places. Can anyone explain? I saw it joked on Facebook that they must've developed Stockholm syndrome.

 

I stuck with the LDs in the end (seat is Torbay which was a Cons gain from LD) but certainly in the South West, the Tories made a lot of visits and a lot of promises during the campaign and to reinforce their messages they spent an absolute fortune of someone else's money bombarding key SW marginals with literature. We got something pretty much every day for weeks and that's one household, the LDs don't have that type of financial muscle or big corporations/TUs to overpower others. Labour don't feature outside of Exeter, not that I vote for them anyway.

 

Put simply, the Tories made huge promises (A303 widening, new sports stadium for Cornwall) in key LD target seats backed up with a relentless communications campaign bankrolled by private donors who will want their pound of flesh. So in this region, the Tories bought their victory by outspending the LDs several times over and some very good LD MPs were let down by Clegg's lack of vision although if you switch the focus to London, even a political giant and clever man such as Vince Cable was simply out-spent out of his seat by the Tory machine. I think the voters here were suspectible to this strategy as Labour never really invested in the SW at all when in power and it was neglected by Maggie as well.

 

As I say, that's one region but suspect it may mirror what happened elsewhere in LD key areas/regions of England/Wales, bearing in mind that Cons/Lab were a zero sum game mostly.

[Jonnyboy]

I stuck with the LDs in the end (seat is Torbay which was a Cons gain from LD) but certainly in the South West, the Tories made a lot of visits and a lot of promises during the campaign and to reinforce their messages they spent an absolute fortune of someone else's money bombarding key SW marginals with literature. We got something pretty much every day for weeks and that's one household, the LDs don't have that type of financial muscle or big corporations/TUs to overpower others. Labour don't feature outside of Exeter, not that I vote for them anyway.

 

Put simply, the Tories made huge promises (A303 widening, new sports stadium for Cornwall) in key LD target seats backed up with a relentless communications campaign bankrolled by private donors who will want their pound of flesh. So in this region, the Tories bought their victory by outspending the LDs several times over and some very good LD MPs were let down by Clegg's lack of vision although if you switch the focus to London, even a political giant and clever man such as Vince Cable was simply out-spent out of his seat by the Tory machine. I think the voters here were suspectible to this strategy as Labour never really invested in the SW at all when in power and it was neglected by Maggie as well.

 

As I say, that's one region but suspect it may mirror what happened elsewhere in LD key areas/regions of England/Wales, bearing in mind that Cons/Lab were a zero sum game mostly.

 

The problem with the Tory party is its very hard for them to run out of somebody else's money.

[BlakeySFC]

More food banks, more NHS privatisation, fantastic.

 

I'm moving to Scotland.

[Whitey Grandad]

The problem with the Tory party is its very hard for them to run out of somebody else's money.

 

Every politician spends other people's money.

[Hockey_saint]

Well this is happening over the course of the next term:

 

http://www.church-poverty.org.uk/news/responsiblereformlaunch

 

(some oddly wise words from Boris there...Notice the 20% how can anyone put a blanket removal of 20% on such a vast range of people?)

 

plus this http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/10/disaster-looms-people-severe-disabilities-independent-living-fund

 

One thing's for sure, it's going to be a pretty poor 5 years for disabled people.

[Johnny Bognor]

Probably about right although it depends how much trauma the Tories go through in 2017 when the EU referendum takes place. I'll be strongly campaigning as exiting the EU would have a shocking impact on the economy and our further and higher education systems, not to mention the health services.

 

Look at the problems Major had after a similar result in 1992, and he had a 20 seat majority, not 5. Moreover, he hadn't promised a referendum either. Concerned that this may distract from continuing the recovery.

 

Labour - need to get back to New Labour/Social Democratic line and work out a strategy for convincing a sceptical public, me included, that they can manage the economy over the longer-term. How they thought that yesterday's disaster wouldn't always be the end game with the two Eds in charge defies belief.

 

LDs - feel sorry for them but Clegg didn't have a vision other than restraining the Tory right, valuable job though that was 2010-15.

 

for me the lib dems were the sacrifice of the election. They genuinely acted in the best interests of the country, to the detriment of their own party.

 

They put the country first, paid the price and i can't help but feel sorry for them. For that alone, I may vote for them next time

Edited 9 May, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Hockey_saint]

for me the lib dems were the sacrifice of the election. They genuinely acted in the best interests of the country, to the detriment of their own party.

 

They put the country first, paid the price and i can't help but feel sorry for them. For that alone, I may vote for them next time

 

Totally agree. But what confuses me is why they got such a slaughtering for apparently trying to temper Tory excess whilst the public gave the tories essentially a pat on the back.

[CB Fry]

for me the lib dems were the sacrifice of the election. They genuinely acted in the best interests of the country, to the detriment of their own party.

 

They put the country first, paid the price and i can't help but feel sorry for them. For that alone, I may vote for them next time

Agree 100%. Directly responsible for some of the best policies of the last government (£10k tax rate, pupil premium) and contributed well to a government that would have been far more dysfunctional as a wafer thin Tory majority administration (brace yourself, Britain).

 

I think Clegg did the right thing, especially considering the alternatives - which were a) prop up a lifeless Labour administration, or b) bottle out of power to be a perpetual all-things-to-all-people protest vote dumping ground - would have both been far less satisfactory.

 

Clegg and that team can be proud that they took their party into government to actually do things rather than spend a life time shape-shifting depending who they were fighting constituency by constituency. Achieved more than Paddy and Charlie ever did anyway. They will clamber back eventually.

Edited 9 May, 2015 by CB Fry

[benjii]

Agree 100%. Directly responsible for some of the best policies of the last government (£10k tax rate, pupil premium) and contributed well to a government that would have been far more dysfunctional than a wafer thin Tory majority administration (brace yourself, Britain).

 

I think Clegg did the right thing, especially considering the alternatives - which were a) prop up a lifeless Labour administration, or b) bottle out of power to be a perpetual all-things-to-all-people protest vote dumping ground - would have both been far Les satisfactory.

 

Clegg and that team can be proud that they took their party into government to actually do things rather than spend a life time shape-shifting depending who they were fighting constituency by constituency. Achieved more than Paddy and Charlie ever did anyway. They will clamber back eventually.

 

Agree.

 

Unfortunate that tuition fees were seemingly such a big stick to beat them with for a lot of people. Particularly given the other parties' ignominy on that subject. Tony "I will never introduce tuition fees" Blair, comes to mind.

[SO16_Saint]

Like the SNP were?

Completely different.

 

The SNP are a legitimate political party with real credible policies and manifestos whereas UKIP have one policy they use to scaremonger.

 

They have no real credible policies outside of immigration and in/out of Europe.

 

Once the referendum has taken place and the people decide to stay in, they will be defunct

Edited 9 May, 2015 by SO16_Saint

[OldNick]

Razor-sharp.

Yet again you are correct.

[OldNick]

Agree 100%. Directly responsible for some of the best policies of the last government (£10k tax rate, pupil premium) and contributed well to a government that would have been far more dysfunctional as a wafer thin Tory majority administration (brace yourself, Britain).

 

I think Clegg did the right thing, especially considering the alternatives - which were a) prop up a lifeless Labour administration, or b) bottle out of power to be a perpetual all-things-to-all-people protest vote dumping ground - would have both been far less satisfactory.

 

Clegg and that team can be proud that they took their party into government to actually do things rather than spend a life time shape-shifting depending who they were fighting constituency by constituency. Achieved more than Paddy and Charlie ever did anyway. They will clamber back eventually.

That's fair, and I mentioned in another thread that the Liberals can hold their heads high.

At the end of the day asperation won over jealousy, and the nation are not as stupid as Labour think, and that they don't want the overspend again.

[OldNick]

I was told yesterday IIRC that only a small percentage of the people on sickness

benifit have done so due to a doctor. The rest have done it by filling out a form.

Is this correct?

[Hockey_saint]

I was told yesterday IIRC that only a small percentage of the people on sickness

benifit have done so due to a doctor. The rest have done it by filling out a form.

Is this correct?

 

Who told you that? As far as sickness benefit goes, the first week you can do yourself and then until they send you a form to fill out, you have to continually get doctor's notes for about 9 weeks. You fill the form out and then 99% of the time you have to see an operative from ATOS who's job is to remove specific targets of the sick onto JSA or whatever else they get. That is very much incorrect.

 

Also sounds like the type of propaganda most of the population have clearly bought into.

[badgerx16]

Who told you that? As far as sickness benefit goes, the first week you can do yourself and then until they send you a form to fill out, you have to continually get doctor's notes for about 9 weeks. You fill the form out and then 99% of the time you have to see an operative from ATOS who's job is to remove specific targets of the sick onto JSA or whatever else they get. That is very much incorrect.

 

Also sounds like the type of propaganda most of the population have clearly bought into.

 

Surely somebody with experience of the system can't be telling us something that contradicts what the national press publish as fact ?

[Hockey_saint]

Surely somebody with experience of the system can't be telling us something that contradicts what the national press publish as fact ?

 

You also have to remember "call me Dave" continually moaned in opposition about all the forms he had to fill in for his son Ivor; there is a nugget of truth there for sure. But the way it used to work is that these forms had to be supported with evidence from a BMA registered doctor (your GP usually) but it changed for out of work benefits like incapacity allowance (now ESA) under labour sadly, where this private French firm was brought in with it's readymade tick box system of thresholds to be looked at by an employee of theirs (usually a totally unqualified...for assesing things such as aspergers syndrome...nurse) and the report which may or may not meet the threshold (which has been rising under the tories) and then, judging on that you are either sent to the jobcentre, put in a "support group" or left alone (happens to about 5%). Now this may even be acceptable for out of work benefits but the ones claimed by Dave (because his son needed help) now face exactly the same test (because the unemploement % for those claiming it is quite high.....it's high those able-bodied too) add to this it's being scrapped, a new benefit called "personal independence plan" is replacing it (with the same tests) but they've made the mobility element almost impossible to claim (for example, epileptics who may need help planning routes and assistance can no longer claim because they can walk 100ms. Oh and they, as mentioned in a link before want to remove 20% of claiments from it....no specific conditions mentioned but 20% none the less. This is how it works....still, it's gotta be done hasnt it? Austerity.

[bridge too far]

I think I read somewhere (I may even have posted a link) that the blind and deaf will be losing some of their support.

 

Feckless, workshy buggers

Edit

 

I don't really mean this bit in bold as I'm sure you know!

Edited 9 May, 2015 by bridge too far

[trousers]

for me the lib dems were the sacrifice of the election. They genuinely acted in the best interests of the country, to the detriment of their own party.

 

They put the country first, paid the price and i can't help but feel sorry for them. For that alone, I may vote for them next time

Yup. I've often defended the Lib Dems on here and have a lot of admiration for Nick Clegg. I'm not sure that admiration stretches to voting for the Lib Dems in the future but stranger things gave happened...

[Hockey_saint]

I think I read somewhere (I may even have posted a link) that the blind and deaf will be losing some of their support.

 

Feckless, workshy buggers

 

It really depends on the operative's interpretation of their condition (as opposed to a qualified doctor) how they tick the boxes and what the current DWP targets are. I'll say it again, this was started by labour but has been greatly expanded to the point where an employed disabled person (who would still need help) is treated no differently as an unemployed disabled person claim incapacity allowance. You see it on the tv all the time, disability benefits are often grouped as all the same thing and usually associated with unemployement when actually, most targetted disability benefits are not dependent on if you are out of work or not; you just happen to need financial help more so than some others. But unemployed or not, they all face similar tests which is very wrong.

 

A new facet of this "universal credit" system according to current government thinking is that if you are employed, but have a low rate of pay and need help with things like housing benefit will now require you to work at least 28 hours a week or face being treated as unemployed and will have to attend job centre meetings weekly or lose the housing benefit. My problem with this is that a lot of disabled people cannot work that many hours so it's gonna cause chaos not to mention the IT system to run it is years behind and running at billions. Then there's the seriously, seriously, quadraplegic, for example disabled people about to lose their support they get in the form of thr indepenent living fund. A (admitedly pompey-supporting) friend will soon lose this, he works but soon may have to stop because he'll not be able to get about. So as I've been accused of being vague, I hope that clears the waters as to why I am so disappointed this country saw fit to give the people responsible for this a hearty pat on the back.

[badgerx16]

It really depends on the operative's interpretation of their condition (as opposed to a qualified doctor) how they tick the boxes and what the current DWP targets are. I'll say it again, this was started by labour but has been greatly expanded to the point where an employed disabled person (who would still need help) is treated no differently as an unemployed disabled person claim incapacity allowance. You see it on the tv all the time, disability benefits are often grouped as all the same thing and usually associated with unemployement when actually, most targetted disability benefits are not dependent on if you are out of work or not; you just happen to need financial help more so than some others. But unemployed or not, they all face similar tests which is very wrong.

 

A new facet of this "universal credit" system according to current government thinking is that if you are employed, but have a low rate of pay and need help with things like housing benefit will now require you to work at least 28 hours a week or face being treated as unemployed and will have to attend job centre meetings weekly or lose the housing benefit. My problem with this is that a lot of disabled people cannot work that many hours so it's gonna cause chaos not to mention the IT system to run it is years behind and running at billions. Then there's the seriously, seriously, quadraplegic, for example disabled people about to lose their support they get in the form of thr indepenent living fund. A (admitedly pompey-supporting) friend will soon lose this, he works but soon may have to stop because he'll not be able to get about. So as I've been accused of being vague, I hope that clears the waters as to why I am so disappointed this country saw fit to give the people responsible for this a hearty pat on the back.

 

Typical leftie excuses

[Hockey_saint]

Typical leftie excuses

 

'Tis why I've tried to make it clear that labour started the ball rolling on a couple of these things. But what didn't need to happen is great expansion of them and some bright spark to think these were viable areas to cut in the name of austerity. It also winds us disabled people up because you cant even dare mention this in front of David Cameron as he really does go red, get quite mad, play the insulted father of a sadly bereaved son and shout you down saying he has the best interests of disabled people at heart as his son died....he's done it on tv a few times but it really doesn't add up when you read above or consider even Boris Johnson complaining about it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

for me the lib dems were the sacrifice of the election. They genuinely acted in the best interests of the country, to the detriment of their own party.

 

They put the country first, paid the price and i can't help but feel sorry for them. For that alone, I may vote for them next time

 

They had no choice than to go in with the Tories, this " sacrifice" nonsense is pony. Every election I can remember they have gone on about a balanced parliament and them holding the labour/Tory to account. They have gone on and on about a hung parliament being best with 2 parties working together, so to have had that situation and then not gone into government would have been bizarre. They would have had no credibility had they stayed in opposition, once the country had given them what they'd been banging on about for years and years.

 

They were punished because the country saw what treacherous two faced liars they are. They had a sense of entitlement, that they should always be part of any government. People like Ed Davy & Vince Cable really think they know best and anyone who disagrees with them is some sort of idiot.

 

Most of their votes were only ever people voting against another party . Round here their voters were anti Tory voters, not lib/dumbs. Their level of support is now about the right level . They get wiped out in pr European elections and now they've lost the protest vote are at the correct level.

Edited 10 May, 2015 by Lord Duckhunter

[CB Fry]

They had no choice than to go in with the Tories, this " sacrifice" nonsense is pony. Every election I can remember they have gone on about a balanced parliament and them holding the labour/Tory to account. They have gone on and on about a hung parliament being best with 2 parties working together, so to have had that situation and then not gone into government would have been bizarre. They would have had no credibility had they stayed in opposition, once the country had given them what they'd been banging on about for years and years.

 

They were punished because the country saw what treacherous two faced liars they are. They had a sense of entitlement, that they should always be part of any government. People like Ed Davy & Vince Cable really think they know best and anyone who disagrees with them is some sort of idiot.

 

Most of their votes were only ever people voting against another party . Round here their voters were anti Tory voters, not lib/dumbs. Their level of support is now about the right level . They get wiped out in pr European elections and now they've lost the protest vote are at the correct level.

 

Utter garbage. Of course they had a choice. They made the right choice but paid a heavy price.

 

And awfully sweet for you to deride a political party as nothing more than a "protest vote". I mean, heaven forbid anyone catching you ever supporting a one - dimensional protest party, right?

[eurosaint]

Probably about right although it depends how much trauma the Tories go through in 2017 when the EU referendum takes place. I'll be strongly campaigning as exiting the EU would have a shocking impact on the economy and our further and higher education systems, not to mention the health services.

 

Cameron and Osborne will be campaigning for staying in the EU I'd have thought. However, the election strategy, whilst very successful yesterday, may backfire when their huge multinational sponsors (who would be furious at a Brexit), key lobby groups like the CBI and the sensible left/centre of the Tory party are at massive loggerheads with the loony Eurosceptic right, which has been reduced by recent retirements but which is still large and could be easily mobilised by a nutter like Liam Fox. The public reception to the 'no' campaign could depend on whether Rupert Murdoch is still alive, Newcorp might be frothing at the mouth less in 2017 if he's dropped off his perch. The Mail is the Mail and Express circulation is too small to matter that much and everyone knows it's an official UKIP paper anyway.

 

Look at the problems Major had after a similar result in 1992, and he had a 20 seat majority, not 5. Moreover, he hadn't promised a referendum either. Concerned that this may distract from continuing the recovery.

 

Labour - need to get back to New Labour/Social Democratic line and work out a strategy for convincing a sceptical public, me included, that they can manage the economy over the longer-term. How they thought that yesterday's disaster wouldn't always be the end game with the two Eds in charge defies belief.

 

LDs - feel sorry for them but Clegg didn't have a vision other than restraining the Tory right, valuable job though that was 2010-15.

 

Tory majority is 10 but if you include the fact that Sinn Fein do not take their seats in Parliament then it can get up to 12 !

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/

Edited 10 May, 2015 by eurosaint

[Lord Duckhunter]

Utter garbage. Of course they had a choice. They made the right choice but paid a heavy price.

 

They had no choice whatsoever if they wanted any credibility at all. They have spent years begging the British people to deliver them a hung parliament, so that they could hold the balance of power. To have that result and then walked away would have been bizarre .