Why the lib-dems are shit

There's no thought beyond embracing the logic of those who think not liking the first of two options means you support the third - the same idiot logic would mean i actually supported the lib-dems if tory or lab led minority govts had been presented to me first and rejected them. Or that commenting on things happening is an endorsement of them.

In terms of the potential best result a 30/30/25 split with the 3 main parties all equally weak and unable to push through aggressive policies, the system as a whole suffering a from of legitimation crisis with people getting ever more distant from the main parties and rejecting the idea that they can deal with the problems rather than being part of the problem. It's telling that the best thing you can say about the lib-dems is that they may accidentally bring about a situation that they want as little as Brown or Cameron.

Anyway, the lib-dems crash has started now anyway - look at these amazing figures from youguv's dail poll.

CON 33(+1), LAB 27%(+1), LDEM 31%(-2).

Broadly speaking, a minority gov governs - with the support of its coalition partner/s.

If and when that coalition breaks down and that minority gov can no longer pass manifesto grade legislation (or even lesser), it is legit to call for a vote of no confidence in that minority gov. If that vote is lost, a General Election must follow.

Would you generally agree with that?

So your yes was a no?

That's not what a minority govt is (at least in the UK) - that's a coalition govt. A minority govt is when a party with only minority support attempts to govern alone - i.e Wilson in 74.

That is the current custom yes. (Now close the trap on me )

It was a refusal to take seriously the question of whether i want a tory govt.

Ah ok.

So that's a yes, your yes was indeed a no, as in no comment.

Are you into politics by any chance?

It's the politics of oddbins.

I'm aftaid that as daft as it may be, this describes my position too.

Except to note that even proportionally speaking, their MPs were less involved in the expense scandal than the other parties.

Also, every time I see a Liberal MP -- with the exception of bloody Opek -- on the telly, they always seem to be considerably better than the other bunch. I find them more willing to engage with the whole of an issue rather than bite at the edges of it, i.e. recognise that most subjects are more complicated than a soundbite would have it. And I find them more thoughtful and worth listening to. Sorry if that annoys people.

You, sir, are worse than Hitler.

I'd also note that my choices are as follows:

* Don't vote at all -- tempting but I personally don't think this helps
* Spoil the ballot -- very tempting, admittedly.
* Vote Green, who are the party that genuinely are closest to representing my views -- but this will REALLY achieve fuck-all.
* Vote Lib Dem, who I agree with on a lot of important issues, but disagree with on other ideological issues -- as discussed above
* Vote for somebody else -- but whom?

And I live in a constituency that is a finely balance Lib Dem/Tory marginal, so by voting Lib Dem I may actually help to deprive the Tories of a seat.

I think we can boil lib dem political philosophy down to the equivalent of a bloke going 'weeeeeell' and doing that balancy hand gesture. You know the one.

You mean the gesture that I make several times on a daily basis?

Could be. Never know. On the other hand...

Thats very condescending of british voters. if voters didnt like the message and the policy they wouldnt show support for them. its not just because they're not the other two. polices are distinct, as is the voting record.

amazing crash? If lib dems finish on 25% it would be a huge achievement for them. Lab are still last. anyhow its all about the tv debates now - the poll figures that count will be the ones after the next two showings.

agree with that - im in a lab seat with libs closing (no tory vote at all round here) but for me the big overriding thing is breaking the dichotomy of Lab Con - which results in a range of politics as broad as that in the US. what we need is more choice, a media that can handle more than one opposing position, and a democratic structure that allows those voices to be heard on an equal playing field. the lib dem surge begins to address that, if nothing else.

If you're going to draw an analogy with the US, it would be like a third party emerging, made up of the likes of John McCain and Joe Lieberman, somewhere between the Democrats and Republicans.

Whoopee.

The Lib Dems were on for 25%ish before the leaders debate.

So,a lot of the bounce in the polls for the Lib Dems is exactly as expected based on pre-election-announcement polling. 25% is their baseline for a respectable performance (albeit a very good one for them, historically). The question is, how much of this Cleggmania will result in a bigger than usual bounce, and how will it affect the marginals? There are far more Lib/Con marginals than Lib/Labour, and the smaller-party vote might get squeezed in some seats if tactical voters pile in.

I think this one is very hard to call, and national percentages just aren't going to translate smoothly into seats - I think the swing is going to vary wildly in the marginals.

Except that the more people who vote for them, the better the chances of other people voting for them.

I forgot one other reason I'll be voting for them:

Dr Evan Harris. One of the only MPs I have a degree of genuine respect for.

It's a nice theory.

In practice, the Greens stand a much better chance long term if the Lib Dems gain enough support to bring about Proportional Representation.

I agree that we need PR, but again, the more people who vote for smaller parties the more a case can be made for PR.

Here we go again. Up comes the election and suddenly people who have been cynical about politicians for several years are saying "he/she seems to talk sense" and basing their voting intentions on it as if politicians that couldn't be trusted change into entirely homest people the moment an election is declared.

For God's sake, they are professionals. It's showtime. Now, of all times, is when you can least trust what a politician says, and when you have to look very carefully at what they have actually done. During an election campaign the one thing you can be sure of is that the worst of the sharks are trying harder than ever to seem cuddly. Yet during an election campaign seems to be when the electorate are at their most gullible.

Who here is basing any of this on what politicians have been saying recently?

We can make the case for political reform until the cows come home. What really counts now is the political clout delivered by actually electing MPs who support it. In reality probably under 30% of the UK electorate are actual Tory supporters and a reformed House of Commons could consign them to the margin where they belong, and thus free us from the need to tactically vote at nearly every election in order to keep them out.

Despite the headline, here's an interesting article from Peter Oborne in the Mail that explores the potential for reform that the Lib Dem surge offers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1267354/PETER-OBORNE-The-Great-Liberal-deception.html

How long ago did they say what you are basing this on, then?

I quite like the Lib Debs to be honest.

Id much rather have them in government than Labour or the Tories any day.

At some point during the past 10 years or so, I guess.

Who's done that? My primary guide is an MP's voting record.