Limp Dems......

#1
Yet again the Lib Dems have been thrashed and the British people have dismissed the Lib Dems as an irrelevance.

Is now the time for the Lib Dems to wind their party up ?
 
#2
6% behind labour = thrashed?

That 6% difference gives 200 seats difference isn't an argument to close down a party, its an argument to bring in proportional representation.
 
#3
According to Sky they got 23% of the vote so far so they didnt do that badly.

Apparently they would have got far higher but someone linked a certain fat, lazy scrounger to them which has cost them dear.
 
#4
How have they been dismissed? They gained 6.5 million votes, compared to the Torys 10.5 million and Labours 8 Million. Its only our electorial system which has cast them into irrelevance.

Also, could you perhaps change the title of this thread to something slightly more suitable for the Current Affairs Forum.
 
#5
Can I point to this little article which would show what happened with a more PR voting system?

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tJln3D22l29BXsMqKm9W5iA&single=true&gid=0&output=html

Note also, the Lib Dem vote went up by some 1-2% this year on the last election.

Proportional Representation is what we need - the Germans have done remarkably well out of it, the same with the Scots I believe. Same with the French, if I remember rightly. Only reason that we have FPTP is because it usually creates a strong government, with one party.

Its an outdated system in the extreme.
 
#6
I don't much care for the Lib / Dems or for their 'policies', BUT 6.6 million electors obviously do.

I conclude therefore that the 'system' is wrong and ought to be changed.

If great swathes of the Tory Party would rip the Party apart should Mr. Cameron offer an appropriate change to our electoral system, so be it - let them tear the Party apart. There MUST be change.

I am a member of the Conservative Party.
 
F

fozzy

Guest
#7
amazing__lobster said:
How have they been dismissed? They gained 6.5 million votes, compared to the Torys 10.5 million and Labours 8 Million. Its only our electorial system which has cast them into irrelevance.

Also, could you perhaps change the title of this thread to something slightly more suitable for the Current Affairs Forum.
Quite - whilst no fan, the electorate needs an alternative to the Socialist/Marxist Left as presented by the Labour Party. In fact most of what we recognise as the welfare state (Pensions etc) was created by Liberals (And one WS Churchill used to be one!)
 
#8
TopBadger said:
6% behind labour = thrashed?

That 6% difference gives 200 seats difference isn't an argument to close down a party, its an argument to bring in proportional representation.
got my vote.
 
#9
The problem with the Limp-Dems is that they are seen as the 'I can't be bothered to take a realistic position and stick to it' Party.

They are the useful 'Protest Vote', but the public wouldn't want them running the show.
 
#10
stacker1 said:
According to Sky they got 23% of the vote so far so they didnt do that badly.

Apparently they would have got far higher but someone linked a certain fat, lazy scrounger to them which has cost them dear.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
 
#11
ex_colonial said:
stacker1 said:
According to Sky they got 23% of the vote so far so they didnt do that badly.

Apparently they would have got far higher but someone linked a certain fat, lazy scrounger to them which has cost them dear.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Did said scrounger get elected to his first paying job for 13 years?
 
#12
Herrumph said:
ex_colonial said:
stacker1 said:
According to Sky they got 23% of the vote so far so they didnt do that badly.

Apparently they would have got far higher but someone linked a certain fat, lazy scrounger to them which has cost them dear.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Did said scrounger get elected to his first paying job for 13 years?
What do you think? That Snoozy might actually try to pay his way?







Gargrave and Malhamdale
SUTCLIFFE, Alan Orr - Conservative - 1169
WALPOLE, Stephen Paul - Liberal Democrat - 709
Alan Orr Sutcliffe elected

http://www.cravendc.gov.uk/Craven/News/posting578.htm
 
#13
TopBadger said:
6% behind labour = thrashed?

That 6% difference gives 200 seats difference isn't an argument to close down a party, its an argument to bring in proportional representation.
Be careful what you wish for. While I know only slightly more about PR than I do about String Theory, it is my understanding that Herr Griffen and the British Nazi Party would also have won seats under proportional representation.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
They've got 6 million votes, and yes, if it was truly proportional to the number of gained votes, they'd have more seats.

What really needs to happen is that the gerrymandered system of voting districts needs to be changed significantly.

The votes achieved needs to more accurately reflect the number of seats gained in Parliament. All part and parcel of a wholesale electoral reform that needs to take place, including a 'Recall' system where we, the public can deselect sitting MPs, and not only that, your local MP has to be exactly that: Local, with local connections and knowledge, not some flown in party hack as happened in some towns.

The machinery of 'party' politics needs to be broken down, with the system of whips also removed permanently.
 
#15
stacker1 said:
Herrumph said:
ex_colonial said:
stacker1 said:
According to Sky they got 23% of the vote so far so they didnt do that badly.

Apparently they would have got far higher but someone linked a certain fat, lazy scrounger to them which has cost them dear.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
Did said scrounger get elected to his first paying job for 13 years?
What do you think? That Snoozy might actually try to pay his way?

Gargrave and Malhamdale
SUTCLIFFE, Alan Orr - Conservative - 1169
WALPOLE, Stephen Paul - Liberal Democrat - 709
Alan Orr Sutcliffe elected

http://www.cravendc.gov.uk/Craven/News/posting578.htm
He would have resigned in disgust at his leader doing a deal with David Cameron anyway!
 
#16
Semper_Flexibilis said:
The problem with the Limp-Dems is that they are seen as the 'I can't be bothered to take a realistic position and stick to it' Party.

They are the useful 'Protest Vote', but the public wouldn't want them running the show.
True, but if they got more of a say in things (and their percentage of the vote demonstrates that they deserve more than they're getting) then they would have to take more responsibility for their policies.

The worst kind of politics is what we've had for years. A huge majority of seats meaning very one-sided government without any fear of the opposition - or the electorate for that matter. 'Party centred' political decision making and use of the Party Whip (How apt a name that is) seems to be more like a dictatorship than a democratic system of government.

Absolute power...
 
#17
Werewolf said:
TopBadger said:
6% behind labour = thrashed?

That 6% difference gives 200 seats difference isn't an argument to close down a party, its an argument to bring in proportional representation.
Be careful what you wish for. While I know only slightly more about PR than I do about String Theory, it is my understanding that Herr Griffen and the British Nazi Party would also have won seats under proportional representation.
If that's the price of electoral reform, so be it. To be truly representative, you have to represent *all* votes, not just the ones you agree with.

They will still continue to be an irrelevence, even with a handful of seats.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#18
Semper_Flexibilis said:
The problem with the Limp-Dems is that they are seen as the 'I can't be bothered to take a realistic position and stick to it' Party.
It seems to me as a LibDem voter (never voted for anyone else!), that the leadership can manage it (see bold). Clegg was clear about mandate and is sticking to it. All the activists [myself included] chanted 'I agree with Nick', so they should stick to it now he's man enough to stick what he said about mandate.

If the Labour party are propped up, I will vote for the Tories in the next election as a protest. Can't stand whining sore losers!!!!
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#19
One thing that has been shown very well so far with the Limps is their unity of action and concensus. Not only this, but sticking to their word on major issues, unlike Gordon Brown and Labour, where they have a tendency to flip-flop, lie and steal.

That will go well for them in the next election.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#20
Biped said:
One thing that has been shown very well so far with the Limps is their unity of action and concensus. Not only this, but sticking to their word on major issues, unlike Gordon Brown and Labour, where they have a tendency to flip-flop, lie and steal.
(see bold) Who are acting like some prick teasing lap dancer (stated proviso relating to Simon and Garfunkels 'The Boxer'); they're trying to harden up the limp ones!!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top