Limp Dims and their rather lacklustre showing last week

#1
Something that was lost in the noise of the Conservative landslide in the elections last week was the fact that the Limp Dims, despite the enormous bigging up that they gave themselves in the run-up, went near as dammit absolutely nowhere. A combination of losses and gains resulting in a net gain of one measly council. Woop-di-doo. What a really viable third party we have here, ladies and gentlemen.

I think it is now plainly clear that, despite their conceited claims, The Limp Dims are not a viable alternative, and will remain nothing more than the largest third-party until another one comes along and displaces them into their rightful position amongst the Greens and various other Communists.

Who in their right mind would think that the answer to the current problems in the UK is more limp-wristed, wishy-washy leftist platitudes of a similar kind to those that got us into this problem in the first place? Oh yes... Limp Dim voters...

Unfortunately, the way the Conservatives are going (or at least are presenting themselves currently), come the next general election we may simply find ourselves with another version of corporatist new Labour unless they grow some balls and heavily prune back the client state and some of the more egregious laws brought in during the last 11 years. I am not holding my breath, but it will be interesting to see what Boris gets up to in London.
 
#2
The Lib Benders showed their true colours with their disgraceful abstension on the EU referendum vote.

I think after a few years of New labour Tory rule, their will be a serious sea change in politics with voters abandoning the main 3.

There is little difference between them anyway.

Same sh*t, slightly different packaging.
 
#3
The Liberals, although staying the same results wise, overtook Labour who were in third place.

In the run up to the election, the media spin was that as the last time the seats were up for election was during the controversy over the Iraq invasion and therefore they punched above their weight on that occasion. Therefore, it was more than likely they would fall behind in this election.

Summary, staying the same was not that bad a result for them.

Although if they had a different leader they may have done better. Vince Cable for instance.
 
#4
Sven has been noticeably quiet on this! Thank the dear...
 
#5
Poor old Boris.

Isn't allowed to have a drink in public, isn't allowed to tell jokes. Boris is a puppet and His strings lead straight to Central Office.
 
#6
Me and my big mouth!
 
#7
Sven said:
Poor old Boris.

Isn't allowed to have a drink in public, isn't allowed to tell jokes. Boris is a puppet and His strings lead straight to Central Office.
May I be the first to congratulate you on your beautifully transparent, and completely irrelevant, straw man.

Please remind me exactly what this has to do with the lacklustre performance of Your beloved party? It expected to hoover up many, many Labour councils, and whilst it narrowly beat Labour in the popular vote, almost all the Labour losses went straight into the wins of the Conservatives. Why do you think that might be? Is it a simple case of conceitedness proven wrong by reality?
 
#8
I think we did quite well considering, taking Liverpool, Hull and Sheffield - much better than one of the biggest two parties that is for certain. Liverpool came to us because an independent came over to the Lib Dems after the Returning Officer had declared the council hung.
 
#9
stoatman said:
Sven said:
Poor old Boris.

Isn't allowed to have a drink in public, isn't allowed to tell jokes. Boris is a puppet and His strings lead straight to Central Office.
May I be the first to congratulate you on your beautifully transparent, and completely irrelevant, straw man.

Please remind me exactly what this has to do with the lacklustre performance of Your beloved party? It expected to hoover up many, many Labour councils, and whilst it narrowly beat Labour in the popular vote, almost all the Labour losses went straight into the wins of the Conservatives. Why do you think that might be? Is it a simple case of conceitedness proven wrong by reality?
Hmmmmmmmmm

Can You produce evidence to show that Lib Dems "expected to hoover up many, many Labour councils" because the feeling I got from the inside was thagt we were going to have a lousy night. Charles Kennedys demeanour demonstrated what our feelings were and it wasn't until much later that we realised that things weren't too bad.
 
#10
Sven said:
stoatman said:
Sven said:
Poor old Boris.

Isn't allowed to have a drink in public, isn't allowed to tell jokes. Boris is a puppet and His strings lead straight to Central Office.
May I be the first to congratulate you on your beautifully transparent, and completely irrelevant, straw man.

Please remind me exactly what this has to do with the lacklustre performance of Your beloved party? It expected to hoover up many, many Labour councils, and whilst it narrowly beat Labour in the popular vote, almost all the Labour losses went straight into the wins of the Conservatives. Why do you think that might be? Is it a simple case of conceitedness proven wrong by reality?
Hmmmmmmmmm

Can You produce evidence to show that Lib Dems "expected to hoover up many, many Labour councils" because the feeling I got from the inside was thagt we were going to have a lousy night.
My Bold

Surely this only demonstrates the utter pointlessness of the Lib Dems if they can only win one council in the local elections when the Prime Minister's approval ratings are the lowest since Nevile Chamberlain?
 
#11
The BBC were certainly gushing over the Lib Dems prospects. in the absence any insider knowledge, it is fair to go on the perceptions of the media.

The BBC's position was unsurprising, really, given the way the "impartial" BBC likes to promote left-wing parties. I particularly remember at the last general election a piece on the evening news gushing over the prospects of the Green party in Brighton, who naturally failed to gain the seat by an enormous margin. Didn't stop the BBC having a go though...
 
#12
I'm amazed that they think their results were a 'good day' after all.

They are irrellivant other than a protest vote, I mean its made up by the likes of sven, prevaricating, obfuscating, lieing cnuts.
 
#14
Sven said:
I think we did quite well considering, taking Liverpool, Hull and Sheffield - much better than one of the biggest two parties that is for certain. Liverpool came to us because an independent came over to the Lib Dems after the Returning Officer had declared the council hung.
Liverpool's been Liberal Useless for years - a decade or more from memory, since Mike Storey got in. They're well known as one of the more fucking useless councils in the country and they've managed to royally fuck everything they've touched for years.
 
#15
TBH, I think many people are too harsh on Sven. He has liberal views. So what? Certainly, many people on this site have different views but they do not get the level of ire directed at them as Sven does.

One of the great qualities of this site, unlike most American sites, is the hands off approach to moderation, and the variety of viewpoints one gets. If I were to be blunt, I would say this is bullying. (But I do not want to be blunt, so I will describe this as the herd instinct in action)

On the topic of the limp dems, I think the wheels came off when they refused to support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Prior to that, I think the Lib Dems came across as the harmless alternative; they were the ones you voted for when you didn't know if you ought to vote tory or labour. After all, the sole issue they seem to focus on is the Iraq war.

IMO, that all changed when it came time to decide if the party should support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. They promised a referendum on the EU Constitution but later they appeared to go back on their words. The party then made a disastrous attempt at PR - they commissioned a survey, but the questions asked were, imo, loaded and seemed inevitably to lead to the answer they wanted.

Nick Clegg failed to communicate his reasons for not supporting a referendum. He says the Lisbon Treaty is not the EU Constituion but the fact is they are very very similar instruments. He ought to have said why he thought they were different. Instead, he decided to politik his way out by commissioning what I feel is a sham survey (eg it asked if people would rather have a referendum on the EU or a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - faced with such a question, of course respondents will say they would rather have the former!)

In hindsight, it might have been a right decision. The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution contains provision that are necessary for the expanded EU to function properly. Therefore, a referendum on this treaty will likely prove disastrous for the proper functioning of the EU. The questions of whether the UK should remain in the EU and whether the lisbon treaty should be supported are 2 very different questions.

The Lib Dems failed to say why they bottled out and to this day, I am not sure why they did so.
 
#16
Scabster_Mooch said:
TBH, I think many people are too harsh on Sven. He has liberal views. So what? Certainly, many people on this site have different views but they do not get the level of ire directed at them as Sven does.

One of the great qualities of this site, unlike most American sites, is the hands off approach to moderation, and the variety of viewpoints one gets. If I were to be blunt, I would say this is bullying. (But I do not want to be blunt, so I will describe this as the herd instinct in action)

On the topic of the limp dems, I think the wheels came off when they refused to support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Prior to that, I think the Lib Dems came across as the harmless alternative; they were the ones you voted for when you didn't know if you ought to vote tory or labour. After all, the sole issue they seem to focus on is the Iraq war.

IMO, that all changed when it came time to decide if the party should support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. They promised a referendum on the EU Constitution but later they appeared to go back on their words. The party then made a disastrous attempt at PR - they commissioned a survey, but the questions asked were, imo, loaded and seemed inevitably to lead to the answer they wanted.

Nick Clegg failed to communicate his reasons for not supporting a referendum. He says the Lisbon Treaty is not the EU Constituion but the fact is they are very very similar instruments. He ought to have said why he thought they were different. Instead, he decided to politik his way out by commissioning what I feel is a sham survey (eg it asked if people would rather have a referendum on the EU or a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - faced with such a question, of course respondents will say they would rather have the former!)

In hindsight, it might have been a right decision. The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution contains provision that are necessary for the expanded EU to function properly. Therefore, a referendum on this treaty will likely prove disastrous for the proper functioning of the EU. The questions of whether the UK should remain in the EU and whether the lisbon treaty should be supported are 2 very different questions.

The Lib Dems failed to say why they bottled out and to this day, I am not sure why they did so.
Are you a politician? You said "If I were to be blunt", proceeded to be blunt (your option) and then said you didn't want to be blunt and called what you said something else! Are you a script writer for Yes Prime Minister?

To the topic - they had a lacklustre showing because they are a lacklustre bunch. They have no policies that define them from any of the rest of the snout in the trough brigade.

Bullying on a website board - how very PC, how very sad.
 
#17
rickshaw-major said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
TBH, I think many people are too harsh on Sven. He has liberal views. So what? Certainly, many people on this site have different views but they do not get the level of ire directed at them as Sven does.

One of the great qualities of this site, unlike most American sites, is the hands off approach to moderation, and the variety of viewpoints one gets. If I were to be blunt, I would say this is bullying. (But I do not want to be blunt, so I will describe this as the herd instinct in action)

On the topic of the limp dems, I think the wheels came off when they refused to support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Prior to that, I think the Lib Dems came across as the harmless alternative; they were the ones you voted for when you didn't know if you ought to vote tory or labour. After all, the sole issue they seem to focus on is the Iraq war.

IMO, that all changed when it came time to decide if the party should support a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. They promised a referendum on the EU Constitution but later they appeared to go back on their words. The party then made a disastrous attempt at PR - they commissioned a survey, but the questions asked were, imo, loaded and seemed inevitably to lead to the answer they wanted.

Nick Clegg failed to communicate his reasons for not supporting a referendum. He says the Lisbon Treaty is not the EU Constituion but the fact is they are very very similar instruments. He ought to have said why he thought they were different. Instead, he decided to politik his way out by commissioning what I feel is a sham survey (eg it asked if people would rather have a referendum on the EU or a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty - faced with such a question, of course respondents will say they would rather have the former!)

In hindsight, it might have been a right decision. The Lisbon Treaty/EU Constitution contains provision that are necessary for the expanded EU to function properly. Therefore, a referendum on this treaty will likely prove disastrous for the proper functioning of the EU. The questions of whether the UK should remain in the EU and whether the lisbon treaty should be supported are 2 very different questions.

The Lib Dems failed to say why they bottled out and to this day, I am not sure why they did so.
Are you a politician? You said "If I were to be blunt", proceeded to be blunt (your option) and then said you didn't want to be blunt and called what you said something else! Are you a script writer for Yes Prime Minister?

To the topic - they had a lacklustre showing because they are a lacklustre bunch. They have no policies that define them from any of the rest of the snout in the trough brigade.

Bullying on a website board - how very PC, how very sad.
It was a poor attempt at flippancy.

I do not think this is about being PC. Everytime he posts, someone starts:

1. calling him a ****

2. saying he is an unemployed layabout and

3. says he is either part of the labour party or a labour party mouthpiece.

The only other person who regularly gets this is that crazy woman with multiple personalities who keeps popping up now and again.
 
#18
So Scabster_Mooch, given your sharp (ie unblunt) and flippant views on the subject, please explain the how, with a thread title Limp Dims and their rather lacklustre showing last week and a debate beginning on the poor showing of said party, this comment (Sven's first effort)
Sven said:
Poor old Boris.

Isn't allowed to have a drink in public, isn't allowed to tell jokes. Boris is a puppet and His strings lead straight to Central Office.
is worthy of anything other than derision.

I mean, hardly an honest and sensible attempt to engage in the subject matter is it.

At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert the subject for reasons of political spoiling. At worst it simply demonstrates his ignorance and uncanny knack of 'proving' his supreme ability to pi$$ people off with his childish pedantry and narrow-minded efforts to diss the conservatives at every turn.

Then, when he brings himself to discuss the subject in hand, he revells in the bagging of a couple of councils and ignores the losses as if they didn't exist. Neither objective, honest or even worthy of sensible debate give his track history.
 
#19
whitecity said:
So Scabster_Mooch, given your sharp (ie unblunt) and flippant views on the subject, please explain the how, with a thread title Limp Dims and their rather lacklustre showing last week and a debate beginning on the poor showing of said party, this comment (Sven's first effort)
Sven said:
Poor old Boris.

Isn't allowed to have a drink in public, isn't allowed to tell jokes. Boris is a puppet and His strings lead straight to Central Office.
is worthy of anything other than derision.

I mean, hardly an honest and sensible attempt to engage in the subject matter is it.

At best, it's a deliberate attempt to divert the subject for reasons of political spoiling. At worst it simply demonstrates his ignorance and uncanny knack of 'proving' his supreme ability to pi$$ people off with his childish pedantry and narrow-minded efforts to diss the conservatives at every turn.

Then, when he brings himself to discuss the subject in hand, he revells in the bagging of a couple of councils and ignores the losses as if they didn't exist. Neither objective, honest or even worthy of sensible debate give his track history.
What was the Stoats final phrase in His initial post WC - was it something about the Liberal Democrats, or was it a comment on Boris?

Do keep up :roll:
 
#20
So?

The subject is the poor showing of the LimpDems. YOU chose to make a flippant remark about the new London Mayor.

If YOU, and YOUR party, want to be taken seriously, a sensible analysis from YOU about how YOU fared would be appropriate. See Vimeiro above for an example.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top