Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to understand why the Lib Dems aren’t doing better in t

SystemSystem Posts: 6,199
edited November 2017 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Trying to understand why the Lib Dems aren’t doing better in the polls

if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["9JCYV"]={},window.datawrapper["9JCYV"].embedDeltas={"100":791,"200":639,"300":588,"400":562,"500":537,"600":537,"700":537,"800":537,"900":537,"1000":511},window.datawrapper["9JCYV"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-9JCYV"),window.datawrapper["9JCYV"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["9JCYV"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["9JCYV"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("9JCYV"==b)window.datawrapper["9JCYV"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"}); 

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,839
    First, unlike the LDs :)
  • old_labourold_labour Posts: 2,904
    edited November 2017
    Theresa May Nick Timothy sticking the boot into Philip Hammond.

    In this Budget, Theresa May bent Hammond to her will - and for the better

    The final paragraph:
    If he truly is reconciled to increasing investment in infrastructure, a strategic role for the state in the economy, and the need for government to intervene where necessary, this Budget may even be a turning point. Let us hope it really is a Damascene conversion, and not a cynical act of self-preservation.
  • Tories and Labour being led by two flawed leaders

    Maybe they’re not the only ones?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    One potential contributing factor is - it always felt to me like Lib Dem’s picked up votes from leftish types who didn’t like Blair, hated the Iraq war, liked civil liberties etc. but would not vote Tory...
    Those people have Corbyn now.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    Didn’t the Lord Ashcroft polling show 70% LD voters were Remain?
    Add on some reluctant Remainers and that suggests the supporters were rather less keen on the EU than the leadership.

    But I agree - it is surprising to me also they are not making headway.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    (Opens eyes, looks at cricket score, curses captain Cook again, closes eyes)
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,839
    Sandpit said:

    (Opens eyes, looks at cricket score, curses captain Cook again, closes eyes)

    114/1, not too shabby!
  • jezzajezza Posts: 1
    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    (Opens eyes, looks at cricket score, curses captain Cook again, closes eyes)

    114/1, not too shabby!
    Only thanks to great batting from Vince and Stoneman.
    Our captain was back in the pavilion at a quarter past eleven. Again.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576
    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    (Opens eyes, looks at cricket score, curses captain Cook again, closes eyes)

    114/1, not too shabby!
    Only thanks to great batting from Vince and Stoneman.
    Our captain was back in the pavilion at a quarter past eleven. Again.
    Isn't Joe Root the captain?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576
    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,166

    Theresa May Nick Timothy sticking the boot into Philip Hammond.

    In this Budget, Theresa May bent Hammond to her will - and for the better

    The final paragraph:
    If he truly is reconciled to increasing investment in infrastructure, a strategic role for the state in the economy, and the need for government to intervene where necessary, this Budget may even be a turning point. Let us hope it really is a Damascene conversion, and not a cynical act of self-preservation.

    It's what is in the Red Book that will cause Hammond problems, or what has been left out. It sounded like he was trying to be too clever, but he didn't quite pull it off...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540
    rcs1000 said:

    Sandpit said:

    RobD said:

    Sandpit said:

    (Opens eyes, looks at cricket score, curses captain Cook again, closes eyes)

    114/1, not too shabby!
    Only thanks to great batting from Vince and Stoneman.
    Our captain was back in the pavilion at a quarter past eleven. Again.
    Isn't Joe Root the captain?
    Feck, you’re right.

    I’ll still call him Captain Cook though, especially when he’s in Australia! But if he’s not captain, what’s he still doing in the team, his batting has been atrocious for the past year?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited November 2017
    It's more than just organisation, imo. We live in a time when very many people are desperate for economic change, and others are fearful of such change. Despite their clear position on Brexit, the LibDems have been unable to tap into a significant seam of support with so many voters polarised between change and status quo (other than Brexit, seen as a return to political 'status quo ante').

    A further factor is that a Corbyn's Labour has re-cast his party's appeal, particularly for younger people (which was always the demographic in which the LDs polled best), reaching into areas of the country where in organisational terms the Labour Party was previously effectively dead. This has lost the LDs their traditional role of being the only opposition to the Tories in areas like the West Country.
  • First they no longer have a reasonably charismatic leader who gets on the telly a lot. In various different ways Ashdown, Kennedy and Clegg (in his day) were all very strong media performers, and when they had a leader who was a bit meh (Ming) they had a hard time making headway.

    Second their main thing right now is liking the EU, and the voters don't like the EU much, and even the pro-remain half are mostly not enthusiastic about it. There's a pro-EU hard core who care about the issue a lot, but it's not very big, and a lot of them are otherwise left-wing and will tend to prefer Labour despite Corbyn's various triangulations.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    A lot of it is about airtime. When they were clearly the number 3 party they got decent media exposure and that helped get them across as the alternative to the big 2.

    Now they are one of the "other" group it is harder for them to differentiate and to attract the attention of the voters.

    Additionally, when you have some lingering angst amongst left wing voters that they supported the Tories in Coalition it makes it harder for them to gain ground in their natural target area, while if you really want to "stop Brexit" then surely the incentive is to vote for a party that (a) can win and (b) might - you believe - stop Brexit: i.e. Labour
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576
    Agree with most of the commentators here, but would add one more thing:

    If you hate Corbyn, you vote May as the person best placed to stop him.
    If you hate May, you vote Corbyn as the person best placed to stop her.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited November 2017

    First they no longer have a reasonably charismatic leader who gets on the telly a lot. In various different ways Ashdown, Kennedy and Clegg (in his day) were all very strong media performers, and when they had a leader who was a bit meh (Ming) they had a hard time making headway.

    Second their main thing right now is liking the EU, and the voters don't like the EU much, and even the pro-remain half are mostly not enthusiastic about it. There's a pro-EU hard core who care about the issue a lot, but it's not very big, and a lot of them are otherwise left-wing and will tend to prefer Labour despite Corbyn's various triangulations.

    Good points, except that there are enough voters (a clear majority) who don't care that much about the EU either way to provide fertile territory for the LDs if it weren't for their other problems. Corbyn has, for the time being, cornered the market for people wanting a change from the Tories; against all expectations, his fudge and mudge on Brexit has held his shaky coalition together. The LDs are left batting for moderate remainer-Tories who dislike the government's approach to Brexit whilst being both unwilling ever to vote for Corbyn but not so frightened of him as to stick with the Tories. That's not a big field to be in (although some of the business community is particularly receptive right now).
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,839
    IanB2 said:

    First they no longer have a reasonably charismatic leader who gets on the telly a lot. In various different ways Ashdown, Kennedy and Clegg (in his day) were all very strong media performers, and when they had a leader who was a bit meh (Ming) they had a hard time making headway.

    Second their main thing right now is liking the EU, and the voters don't like the EU much, and even the pro-remain half are mostly not enthusiastic about it. There's a pro-EU hard core who care about the issue a lot, but it's not very big, and a lot of them are otherwise left-wing and will tend to prefer Labour despite Corbyn's various triangulations.

    Good points, except that there are enough voters (a clear majority) who don't care that much about the EU either way to provide fertile territory for the LDs if it weren't for their other problems. Corbyn has, for the time being, cornered the market for people wanting a change from the Tories; against all expectations, his fudge and mudge on Brexit has held his shaky coalition together. The LDs are left batting for moderate remainer-Tories who dislike the government's approach to Brexit whilst being both unwilling ever to vote for Corbyn but not so frightened of him as to stick with the Tories. That's not a big field to be in (although some of the business community is particularly receptive right now).
    Why would voters apathetic towards the EU be attracted to a party that is the most pro-EU of them all, surely that would put them off?
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    First they no longer have a reasonably charismatic leader who gets on the telly a lot. In various different ways Ashdown, Kennedy and Clegg (in his day) were all very strong media performers, and when they had a leader who was a bit meh (Ming) they had a hard time making headway.

    Second their main thing right now is liking the EU, and the voters don't like the EU much, and even the pro-remain half are mostly not enthusiastic about it. There's a pro-EU hard core who care about the issue a lot, but it's not very big, and a lot of them are otherwise left-wing and will tend to prefer Labour despite Corbyn's various triangulations.

    Good points, except that there are enough voters (a clear majority) who don't care that much about the EU either way to provide fertile territory for the LDs if it weren't for their other problems. Corbyn has, for the time being, cornered the market for people wanting a change from the Tories; against all expectations, his fudge and mudge on Brexit has held his shaky coalition together. The LDs are left batting for moderate remainer-Tories who dislike the government's approach to Brexit whilst being both unwilling ever to vote for Corbyn but not so frightened of him as to stick with the Tories. That's not a big field to be in (although some of the business community is particularly receptive right now).
    Why would voters apathetic towards the EU be attracted to a party that is the most pro-EU of them all, surely that would put them off?
    They are targeting the "not-May/not-Corbyn/not-SNP" segment of the pie.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited November 2017
    RobD said:

    IanB2 said:

    First they no longer have a reasonably charismatic leader who gets on the telly a lot. In various different ways Ashdown, Kennedy and Clegg (in his day) were all very strong media performers, and when they had a leader who was a bit meh (Ming) they had a hard time making headway.

    Second their main thing right now is liking the EU, and the voters don't like the EU much, and even the pro-remain half are mostly not enthusiastic about it. There's a pro-EU hard core who care about the issue a lot, but it's not very big, and a lot of them are otherwise left-wing and will tend to prefer Labour despite Corbyn's various triangulations.

    Good points, except that there are enough voters (a clear majority) who don't care that much about the EU either way to provide fertile territory for the LDs if it weren't for their other problems. Corbyn has, for the time being, cornered the market for people wanting a change from the Tories; against all expectations, his fudge and mudge on Brexit has held his shaky coalition together. The LDs are left batting for moderate remainer-Tories who dislike the government's approach to Brexit whilst being both unwilling ever to vote for Corbyn but not so frightened of him as to stick with the Tories. That's not a big field to be in (although some of the business community is particularly receptive right now).
    Why would voters apathetic towards the EU be attracted to a party that is the most pro-EU of them all, surely that would put them off?
    By definition if you are apathetic on that issue it wouldn't. The issue is that there is nothing else on offer to pull you in their direction.
  • Torby_FennelTorby_Fennel Posts: 289
    edited November 2017
    Charles said:

    A lot of it is about airtime. When they were clearly the number 3 party they got decent media exposure and that helped get them across as the alternative to the big 2.

    Now they are one of the "other" group it is harder for them to differentiate and to attract the attention of the voters.

    As a Lib Dem member that is pretty much my own view. Lib Dems are simply not very noticeable now. It's hard to rebuild without first getting significant media attention and it's equally hard to get significant media attention without first rebuilding.

    Frankly... we were pretty lucky to survive the 2017 GE at all, let alone increase our seat tally, when both main parties increased vote share and we lost vote share. For a party losing votes overall we got very, very, lucky with where we gained our votes and where we lost them. Though part of me suspects we might be in better shape now if we'd won just 11 of the seats that we got rather than 12... if you take my meaning? Still, we are where we are and there's plenty of votes out there to fight for...



  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    The LDs may not be able to rebuild a significant brand on the centre left until, either, Labour (and specifically radical Labour) is seen to fail, either in power or through internal strife (as in the early 80s), or Labour breaks its own coalition when forced to take a clear decision for or against Brexit, or a type of Brexit, that many of its supporters don't like.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576
    Brilliant fielding and run out (sadly).
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    Brilliant piece of fielding by Lyon but a seriously good effort by Vince too.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited November 2017

    Charles said:

    A lot of it is about airtime. When they were clearly the number 3 party they got decent media exposure and that helped get them across as the alternative to the big 2.

    Now they are one of the "other" group it is harder for them to differentiate and to attract the attention of the voters.

    As a Lib Dem member that is pretty much my own view. Lib Dems are simply not very noticeable now. It's hard to rebuild without first getting significant media attention and it's equally hard to get significant media attention without first rebuilding.

    Frankly... we were pretty lucky to survive the 2017 GE at all, let alone increase our seat tally, when both main parties increased vote share and we lost vote share. For a party losing votes overall we got very, very, lucky with where we gained our votes and where we lost them. Though part of me suspects we might be in better shape now if we'd won just 11 of the seats that we got rather than 12... if you take my meaning? Still, we are where we are and there's plenty of votes out there to fight for...

    For a party that has few areas of traditional strength, the Scottish dimension has been particularly important for them. Scotland has long provided a significant proportion of its base, and former leaders Grimond, Steel, Kennedy and Campbell all held Scottish seats. A significant proportion of the 50+ seats it held at its peak were Scottish. Then came the double-whammy of association with the Tories in national government and the polarisation into Nationalist/Unionist during the indyref. And to cap it all the success of the SNP directly took away the LibDems traditional role as third party in parliament, and as you say the attention that went with it (and also the chance of a share in power at Holyrood).

    The replacement of Scottish anti-Tory tactical voting with anti-SNP tactical has helped the LDs recover some of the position in Scotland, largely explaining why the 2017 seat tally went up rather than down.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    edited November 2017
    DavidL said:

    Brilliant piece of fielding by Lyon but a seriously good effort by Vince too.

    He really did score some runs then?

    I was assuming my Cricinfo app had gone wrong.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:

    A lot of it is about airtime. When they were clearly the number 3 party they got decent media exposure and that helped get them across as the alternative to the big 2.

    Now they are one of the "other" group it is harder for them to differentiate and to attract the attention of the voters.

    As a Lib Dem member that is pretty much my own view. Lib Dems are simply not very noticeable now. It's hard to rebuild without first getting significant media attention and it's equally hard to get significant media attention without first rebuilding.

    Frankly... we were pretty lucky to survive the 2017 GE at all, let alone increase our seat tally, when both main parties increased vote share and we lost vote share. For a party losing votes overall we got very, very, lucky with where we gained our votes and where we lost them. Though part of me suspects we might be in better shape now if we'd won just 11 of the seats that we got rather than 12... if you take my meaning? Still, we are where we are and there's plenty of votes out there to fight for...



    I think a lot of your problems stem back to the original Alliance and reinforced by the Kennedy years

    An amalgam of not-Tory-but-not-Labour and generally-leftish-but-not-Labour voters was never going to survive contact with reality.

    It was bad luck that it came about in the era of social media - which reinforced but didn't create the problem - and bad politics that it came with a totemic "betrayal" in tuition fees but neither of those was the fault line

    Appreciate it's difficult in a world of FPTP, but wouldn't it be better to have a clear world view and voter proposition than a mushy muddle of Orange Bookers and Labour-lite?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576
    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Brilliant piece of fielding by Lyon but a seriously good effort by Vince too.

    He really did score some runs then?

    I was assuming my Cricinfo app had gone wrong.
    To be honest I was expecting him to pay some pretty shots and then be out for 30 as usual but a superb piece of fielding and a run out has denied him a 100. The ball is moving around now though and England under pressure.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    Not sure they have ever recovered from the loss of Charlie Kennedy. But this semi-retired leadership by Cable is doing them no favours.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    A lot of it is about airtime. When they were clearly the number 3 party they got decent media exposure and that helped get them across as the alternative to the big 2.

    Now they are one of the "other" group it is harder for them to differentiate and to attract the attention of the voters.

    As a Lib Dem member that is pretty much my own view. Lib Dems are simply not very noticeable now. It's hard to rebuild without first getting significant media attention and it's equally hard to get significant media attention without first rebuilding.

    Frankly... we were pretty lucky to survive the 2017 GE at all, let alone increase our seat tally, when both main parties increased vote share and we lost vote share. For a party losing votes overall we got very, very, lucky with where we gained our votes and where we lost them. Though part of me suspects we might be in better shape now if we'd won just 11 of the seats that we got rather than 12... if you take my meaning? Still, we are where we are and there's plenty of votes out there to fight for...



    I think a lot of your problems stem back to the original Alliance and reinforced by the Kennedy years

    An amalgam of not-Tory-but-not-Labour and generally-leftish-but-not-Labour voters was never going to survive contact with reality.

    It was bad luck that it came about in the era of social media - which reinforced but didn't create the problem - and bad politics that it came with a totemic "betrayal" in tuition fees but neither of those was the fault line

    Appreciate it's difficult in a world of FPTP, but wouldn't it be better to have a clear world view and voter proposition than a mushy muddle of Orange Bookers and Labour-lite?
    The latter is largely a legacy of holding together its historical base of the West Country, rural Scotland and Wales, the non-conformist North and more recently middle class London. Nevertheless on policy the internal divisions the LDs have are far fewer than either the EU-riven Tories or Labour's factionalism.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    I think of the Lib Dems like a pet chihuahua: a bit yappy and no one really knows what they are for, but pretty harmless and kind of cute
  • Theresa May Nick Timothy sticking the boot into Philip Hammond.

    In this Budget, Theresa May bent Hammond to her will - and for the better

    The final paragraph:
    If he truly is reconciled to increasing investment in infrastructure, a strategic role for the state in the economy, and the need for government to intervene where necessary, this Budget may even be a turning point. Let us hope it really is a Damascene conversion, and not a cynical act of self-preservation.

    One does wonder if there's something personal between Timothy and Hammond.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    A lot of it is about airtime. When they were clearly the number 3 party they got decent media exposure and that helped get them across as the alternative to the big 2.

    Now they are one of the "other" group it is harder for them to differentiate and to attract the attention of the voters.

    As a Lib Dem member that is pretty much my own view. Lib Dems are simply not very noticeable now. It's hard to rebuild without first getting significant media attention and it's equally hard to get significant media attention without first rebuilding.

    Frankly... we were pretty lucky to survive the 2017 GE at all, let alone increase our seat tally, when both main parties increased vote share and we lost vote share. For a party losing votes overall we got very, very, lucky with where we gained our votes and where we lost them. Though part of me suspects we might be in better shape now if we'd won just 11 of the seats that we got rather than 12... if you take my meaning? Still, we are where we are and there's plenty of votes out there to fight for...



    I think a lot of your problems stem back to the original Alliance and reinforced by the Kennedy years

    An amalgam of not-Tory-but-not-Labour and generally-leftish-but-not-Labour voters was never going to survive contact with reality.

    It was bad luck that it came about in the era of social media - which reinforced but didn't create the problem - and bad politics that it came with a totemic "betrayal" in tuition fees but neither of those was the fault line

    Appreciate it's difficult in a world of FPTP, but wouldn't it be better to have a clear world view and voter proposition than a mushy muddle of Orange Bookers and Labour-lite?
    The latter is largely a legacy of holding together its historical base of the West Country, rural Scotland and Wales, the non-conformist North and more recently middle class London. Nevertheless on policy the internal divisions the LDs have are far fewer than either the EU-riven Tories or Labour's factionalism.
    The thing most people don't get about the Tories is we aren't that split on the EU. Sure there are fierce arguments about it, but it's a question of cost benefit rather than some overarching worldview.

    Once it's over we'll all get along just fine (or no worse than usual)
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited November 2017
    Charles said:

    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:

    A lot of it is about airtime. When they were clearly the number 3 party they got decent media exposure and that helped get them across as the alternative to the big 2.

    Now they are one of the "other" group it is harder for them to differentiate and to attract the attention of the voters.

    As a Lib Dem member that is pretty much my own view. Lib Dems are simply not very noticeable now. It's hard to rebuild without first getting significant media attention and it's equally hard to get significant media attention without first rebuilding.

    Frankly... we were pretty lucky to survive the 2017 GE at all, let alone increase our seat tally, when both main parties increased vote share and we lost vote share. For a party losing votes overall we got very, very, lucky with where we gained our votes and where we lost them. Though part of me suspects we might be in better shape now if we'd won just 11 of the seats that we got rather than 12... if you take my meaning? Still, we are where we are and there's plenty of votes out there to fight for...



    I think a lot of your problems stem back to the original Alliance and reinforced by the Kennedy years

    An amalgam of not-Tory-but-not-Labour and generally-leftish-but-not-Labour voters was never going to survive contact with reality.

    It was bad luck that it came about in the era of social media - which reinforced but didn't create the problem - and bad politics that it came with a totemic "betrayal" in tuition fees but neither of those was the fault line

    Appreciate it's difficult in a world of FPTP, but wouldn't it be better to have a clear world view and voter proposition than a mushy muddle of Orange Bookers and Labour-lite?
    The latter is largely a legacy of holding together its historical base of the West Country, rural Scotland and Wales, the non-conformist North and more recently middle class London. Nevertheless on policy the internal divisions the LDs have are far fewer than either the EU-riven Tories or Labour's factionalism.
    The thing most people don't get about the Tories is we aren't that split on the EU. Sure there are fierce arguments about it, but it's a question of cost benefit rather than some overarching worldview.

    Once it's over we'll all get along just fine (or no worse than usual)
    Knowing a fair few Tory members and councillors, I cannot reconcile your post with my experience. And we all saw the Major years play out on TV.

    Except that, if Brexit fails, for sure there will suddenly be a lot more Tories claiming to have always been diehard remainers.
  • DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    He's invisible as far as I can tell.

    He seems to have built a whole career out of one half-decent gag about 8 years ago.
  • Charles said:


    I think a lot of your problems stem back to the original Alliance and reinforced by the Kennedy years

    An amalgam of not-Tory-but-not-Labour and generally-leftish-but-not-Labour voters was never going to survive contact with reality.

    It was bad luck that it came about in the era of social media - which reinforced but didn't create the problem - and bad politics that it came with a totemic "betrayal" in tuition fees but neither of those was the fault line

    Appreciate it's difficult in a world of FPTP, but wouldn't it be better to have a clear world view and voter proposition than a mushy muddle of Orange Bookers and Labour-lite?

    I take the point that Lib Dems need to get better at defining ourselves in our own terms rather than by comparison with the big two. Though, at the end of the day, the left edge of Conservative voters and the right edge of Labour voters are always going to be the two most fruitful places for us to hunt for votes. It's quite hard to attract both of these groups simultaneously, of course... I saw nothing at all to attract me to the Lib Dems during the Kennedy years but everything I needed to be attracted was offered during the Clegg years - even though I still carried on voting Conservative for quite a while before finally realising where I belonged.

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    I think of the Lib Dems like a pet chihuahua: a bit yappy and no one really knows what they are for, but pretty harmless and kind of cute
    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    BT Sports have this persistent habit of showing the wickets without any warning, even in the middle of an over. Its a bit disconcerting. Otherwise seems ok.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818

    Charles said:


    I think a lot of your problems stem back to the original Alliance and reinforced by the Kennedy years

    An amalgam of not-Tory-but-not-Labour and generally-leftish-but-not-Labour voters was never going to survive contact with reality.

    It was bad luck that it came about in the era of social media - which reinforced but didn't create the problem - and bad politics that it came with a totemic "betrayal" in tuition fees but neither of those was the fault line

    Appreciate it's difficult in a world of FPTP, but wouldn't it be better to have a clear world view and voter proposition than a mushy muddle of Orange Bookers and Labour-lite?

    I take the point that Lib Dems need to get better at defining ourselves in our own terms rather than by comparison with the big two. Though, at the end of the day, the left edge of Conservative voters and the right edge of Labour voters are always going to be the two most fruitful places for us to hunt for votes. It's quite hard to attract both of these groups simultaneously, of course... I saw nothing at all to attract me to the Lib Dems during the Kennedy years but everything I needed to be attracted was offered during the Clegg years - even though I still carried on voting Conservative for quite a while before finally realising where I belonged.

    That's not what they were offering: Laws and Cable had fundamentally different world views. As soon as they chose Tories or Labour they would piss off a large cohort of voters. Appealing to the Blairites and the Camsroonites would be coherent but I'm not sure viable. (That policy is more effectively pursued by the Liberal Unionists who have significant influence inside the Tories)
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    I think of the Lib Dems like a pet chihuahua: a bit yappy and no one really knows what they are for, but pretty harmless and kind of cute
    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.
    Peak California!
  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,166
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    I think of the Lib Dems like a pet chihuahua: a bit yappy and no one really knows what they are for, but pretty harmless and kind of cute
    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.
    I am very tempted to suggest football, but very soon in Edinburgh, someone is opening a Chihuahua cuddling café. I will not be visiting!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    First day at the Gabba and the most dangerous bowler by some distance is Nathan Lyon. Weird.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,576
    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    I think of the Lib Dems like a pet chihuahua: a bit yappy and no one really knows what they are for, but pretty harmless and kind of cute
    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.
    Peak California!
    Careful, or I'll WhatsApp you a picture :smile:
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited November 2017
    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    I think a lot of your problems stem back to the original Alliance and reinforced by the Kennedy years

    An amalgam of not-Tory-but-not-Labour and generally-leftish-but-not-Labour voters was never going to survive contact with reality.

    It was bad luck that it came about in the era of social media - which reinforced but didn't create the problem - and bad politics that it came with a totemic "betrayal" in tuition fees but neither of those was the fault line

    Appreciate it's difficult in a world of FPTP, but wouldn't it be better to have a clear world view and voter proposition than a mushy muddle of Orange Bookers and Labour-lite?

    I take the point that Lib Dems need to get better at defining ourselves in our own terms rather than by comparison with the big two. Though, at the end of the day, the left edge of Conservative voters and the right edge of Labour voters are always going to be the two most fruitful places for us to hunt for votes. It's quite hard to attract both of these groups simultaneously, of course... I saw nothing at all to attract me to the Lib Dems during the Kennedy years but everything I needed to be attracted was offered during the Clegg years - even though I still carried on voting Conservative for quite a while before finally realising where I belonged.

    That's not what they were offering: Laws and Cable had fundamentally different world views. As soon as they chose Tories or Labour they would piss off a large cohort of voters. Appealing to the Blairites and the Camsroonites would be coherent but I'm not sure viable. (That policy is more effectively pursued by the Liberal Unionists who have significant influence inside the Tories)
    If the Tories plough on towards a hard Brexit through increasingly stormy seas, it isnt inconceivable to see them losing a lot of their moderate supporters. Similarly Labour if, either, Corbyn wins and fails in government, one more heave from the left leaves him still short of power, or a forced decision brings home the Brexit chickens.

    The LDs are essentially waiting for events beyond their control to force a chunk of the electorate to give them a fresh look.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812
    OchEye said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    I think of the Lib Dems like a pet chihuahua: a bit yappy and no one really knows what they are for, but pretty harmless and kind of cute
    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.
    I am very tempted to suggest football, but very soon in Edinburgh, someone is opening a Chihuahua cuddling café. I will not be visiting!
    The cat café at the end of the Grassmarket has been a tremendous success. My daughters love it. I've not been.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited November 2017

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    Yet the DPM option was pursued specifically as a reaction against the experience of other liberal parties in coalition, particularly the FDP.

    If the moderate Tories had been more pragmatic and far sighted in their approach to coalition, they could have had current politics sewn up, and consigned Brexit to the dustbin of history.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,818
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    I think a lot of your problems stem back to the original Alliance and reinforced by the Kennedy years

    An amalgam of not-Tory-but-not-Labour and generally-leftish-but-not-Labour voters was never going to survive contact with reality.

    It was bad luck that it came about in the era of social media - which reinforced but didn't create the problem - and bad politics that it came with a totemic "betrayal" in tuition fees but neither of those was the fault line

    Appreciate it's difficult in a world of FPTP, but wouldn't it be better to have a clear world view and voter proposition than a mushy muddle of Orange Bookers and Labour-lite?

    I take the point that Lib Dems need to get better at defining ourselves in our own terms rather than by comparison with the big two. Though, at the end of the day, the left edge of Conservative voters and the right edge of Labour voters are always going to be the two most fruitful places for us to hunt for votes. It's quite hard to attract both of these groups simultaneously, of course... I saw nothing at all to attract me to the Lib Dems during the Kennedy years but everything I needed to be attracted was offered during the Clegg years - even though I still carried on voting Conservative for quite a while before finally realising where I belonged.

    That's not what they were offering: Laws and Cable had fundamentally different world views. As soon as they chose Tories or Labour they would piss off a large cohort of voters. Appealing to the Blairites and the Camsroonites would be coherent but I'm not sure viable. (That policy is more effectively pursued by the Liberal Unionists who have significant influence inside the Tories)
    If the Tories plough on towards a hard Brexit through increasingly stormy seas, it isnt inconceivable to see them losing a lot of their moderate supporters. Similarly Labour if, either, Corbyn wins and fails in government, one more heave from the left leaves him still short of power, or a forced decision brings home the Brexit chickens.

    The LDs are essentially waiting for events beyond their control to force a chunk of the electorate to give them a fresh look.
    Course they are, sweetie
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 20,812

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I think that that is a part of the problem. I agree with your first paragraph apart from the last 2 sentences. I think the Lib Dems should be proud of the Coalition and what it achieved in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.
  • OchEye said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    I think of the Lib Dems like a pet chihuahua: a bit yappy and no one really knows what they are for, but pretty harmless and kind of cute
    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.
    I am very tempted to suggest football, but very soon in Edinburgh, someone is opening a Chihuahua cuddling café. I will not be visiting!
    Why not get a proper dog?
  • I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    Clegg was doomed the second he picked a side. The coalition otherwise worked superbly until the AV ref, ok-ish for a year or two thereafter, and very icily for the last 2 years.

    His mistake was - as you say - not picking a department but that's with the luxury of hindsight. At that stage, he thought DPM would allow him to advance major constitutional reform.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,839
    IanB2 said:

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    Yet the DPM option was pursued specifically as a reaction against the experience of other liberal parties in coalition, particularly the FDP.

    If the moderate Tories had been more pragmatic and far sighted in their approach to coalition, they could have had current politics sewn up, and consigned Brexit to the dustbin of history.
    It would have come to a head eventually, what with the EU's relentless drive towards integration.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    In a counter-factual history of the early 21st Century, of course, Kennedy would not have had a drink problem and would have been a very significant figure in the 2005 Parliament. Blair’s invasion of Iraq poisoned Labour for several years, and if the LD’s had not been involved in internal politicking they could have picked up even more of the ‘middle ground’ in 2010 than they did.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    Clegg was doomed the second he picked a side. The coalition otherwise worked superbly until the AV ref, ok-ish for a year or two thereafter, and very icily for the last 2 years.

    His mistake was - as you say - not picking a department but that's with the luxury of hindsight. At that stage, he thought DPM would allow him to advance major constitutional reform.
    I agree.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I supported Cleggs role in the coalition, which I see as a golden period of good government. The exception is everything that Cable did, and most particularly tuition fees. Cable has to go for any chance of revival. Lamb would be the best choice, but there are others. Indeed Lamb was the best choice in 2015, though I do miss the manic energy of Tim.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    Clegg was doomed the second he picked a side. The coalition otherwise worked superbly until the AV ref, ok-ish for a year or two thereafter, and very icily for the last 2 years.

    His mistake was - as you say - not picking a department but that's with the luxury of hindsight. At that stage, he thought DPM would allow him to advance major constitutional reform.
    What Department could he have had? The Foreign Office would have been the most natural fit, but would have left Hague in the cold who was vital in selling the coalition to dubious Tories. Home Office would have been possible but would have left him even more brutally exposed to the Tory right. Osborne had been guaranteed the Treasury. That doesn't leave many options.

    Although with hindsight a genuine brief might have helped, I think it was a logical and sensible decision to be DPM and not have a portfolio at the time. It just didn't work.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I supported Cleggs role in the coalition, which I see as a golden period of good government. The exception is everything that Cable did, and most particularly tuition fees. Cable has to go for any chance of revival. Lamb would be the best choice, but there are others. Indeed Lamb was the best choice in 2015, though I do miss the manic energy of Tim.
    Agree about tuition fees, but not sure about Cable. I have a feeling he was plotted against by Osborne and having Fallon as deputy wasn’t good. However, I’d like to see Jo Swinson take over as Leader as soon as she’s found her feet in Parliament again.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I supported Cleggs role in the coalition, which I see as a golden period of good government. The exception is everything that Cable did, and most particularly tuition fees. Cable has to go for any chance of revival. Lamb would be the best choice, but there are others. Indeed Lamb was the best choice in 2015, though I do miss the manic energy of Tim.
    Agree about tuition fees, but not sure about Cable. I have a feeling he was plotted against by Osborne and having Fallon as deputy wasn’t good. However, I’d like to see Jo Swinson take over as Leader as soon as she’s found her feet in Parliament again.
    I agree. A return to a Scottish leader does however present the risk of being waylaid by Scottish politics, particularly if indyref2 becomes a reality.
  • Scott_PScott_P Posts: 37,181
    rcs1000 said:

    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.

    Chihuahua is the Radiohead of dogs...

    Discusss.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487
    Lib Dems, oh dear oh dear, oh dear.

    Clegg was a fool. Not much more that can be said.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I supported Cleggs role in the coalition, which I see as a golden period of good government. The exception is everything that Cable did, and most particularly tuition fees. Cable has to go for any chance of revival. Lamb would be the best choice, but there are others. Indeed Lamb was the best choice in 2015, though I do miss the manic energy of Tim.
    Agree about tuition fees, but not sure about Cable. I have a feeling he was plotted against by Osborne and having Fallon as deputy wasn’t good. However, I’d like to see Jo Swinson take over as Leader as soon as she’s found her feet in Parliament again.
    I don't think Cable ever quite recovered from the humiliation of that Telegraph sting. Even allowing for the avoidable disaster of tuition fees, he was always a diminished figure with doubtful judgement after that.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I supported Cleggs role in the coalition, which I see as a golden period of good government. The exception is everything that Cable did, and most particularly tuition fees. Cable has to go for any chance of revival. Lamb would be the best choice, but there are others. Indeed Lamb was the best choice in 2015, though I do miss the manic energy of Tim.
    I think the Lib Dems managed to restrain some of nastier/dafter Tory ideas which sadly for them actually probably helped the Tories come 2015.

    A golden period of good government? In some ways perhaps.
    An end to the daft reshuffles of Blair, creation of the OBR, an increased role for Cabinet with Cameron largely letting his Ministers get on with things.

    Ultimately though the basic economic strategy taken was wrong in my view and led to the worst recovery from a recession in 50+ years.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    edited November 2017
    rkrkrk said:

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I supported Cleggs role in the coalition, which I see as a golden period of good government. The exception is everything that Cable did, and most particularly tuition fees. Cable has to go for any chance of revival. Lamb would be the best choice, but there are others. Indeed Lamb was the best choice in 2015, though I do miss the manic energy of Tim.
    I think the Lib Dems managed to restrain some of nastier/dafter Tory ideas which sadly for them actually probably helped the Tories come 2015.

    A golden period of good government? In some ways perhaps.
    An end to the daft reshuffles of Blair, creation of the OBR, an increased role for Cabinet with Cameron largely letting his Ministers get on with things.

    Ultimately though the basic economic strategy taken was wrong in my view and led to the worst recovery from a recession in 50+ years.
    Yet no-one was advocating an alternative at the time. Despite all the bluster from Balls, the difference between his pre-2010 plan and where the LibDem-moderated Tories finished up was negligible.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 10,582
    rkrkrk said:

    A golden period of good government? In some ways perhaps.
    An end to the daft reshuffles of Blair, creation of the OBR, an increased role for Cabinet with Cameron largely letting his Ministers get on with things.

    Ultimately though the basic economic strategy taken was wrong in my view and led to the worst recovery from a recession in 50+ years.

    Hmmm.

    Two comments can be made in response to that:

    1) There had already been three years where Labour pursuing a different strategy had failed to make noticeably more headway than the Coalition did at equally high cost;

    2) It was the worst recession since at least 1931 and arguably (in this country at least) 1878 so it is not surprising the recovery was slow and uneven.

    Both governments deserve some credit - Brown and Darling for keeping the banks alive and inflation low, the Coalition for managing to avoid mass unemployment while slowly reigning in our vast deficit. Brown's record is marred by the significant role his misguided regulatory reforms played in the crisis. The coalition's by setting over-ambitious targets and failing to meet them.

    But sometimes you have to accept there are no easy answers and no quick fixes. Seven years of excess and corruption left us brutally exposed when the music stopped and even those who were not involved in it were always going to suffer. Whether the coalition or Labour could have done much more is a bit doubtful given the restraints they were under. At the same time, both governments were stable and commanded popular legitimacy. That in itself was worth something.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487
    Cleggs destruction of the Lib Dems was a key enabler of Brexit. A tragic figure. Icarus.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548
    Jonathan said:

    Lib Dems, oh dear oh dear, oh dear.

    Clegg was a fool. Not much more that can be said.

    Clegg put country before party in seeing that the GFC needed a stable government. Confidence and supply might have been better for party.

    No risk of any other party leader doing the same.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    The LDs are hindered by the left still not trusting them after their coalition with the Tories and the right focusing on keeping out Corbyn or concerned about their opposition to Brexit.

    However they have an opportunity to win back council seats in the Home Counties in particular and to appeal to residents living there who normally vote Tory at general elections by opposing developments of housing in the Green belt or local fields and countryside and certainly some local LDs are already starting to do that.

    At the same time Corbyn's continued opposition to staying permanenently in the single market and leaving free movement in place gives the LDs the chance to appeal to strong Remainers who want a soft Brexit and voted for Corbyn in June as they thought that was the best way to achieve that but may now be looking for an alternative party committed to permanent single market and customs union membership like the LDs.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487

    Jonathan said:

    Lib Dems, oh dear oh dear, oh dear.

    Clegg was a fool. Not much more that can be said.

    Clegg put country before party in seeing that the GFC needed a stable government. Confidence and supply might have been better for party.

    No risk of any other party leader doing the same.
    Clegg put ego before party. The Cleggasm and being the one to return the Lib Dems to office went to his head and destroyed his judgement.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    IanB2 said:

    Charles said:

    Charles said:


    I think a lot of your problems stem back to the original Alliance and reinforced by the Kennedy years

    An amalgam of not-Tory-but-not-Labour and generally-leftish-but-not-Labour voters was never going to survive contact with reality.

    It was bad luck that it came about in the era of social media - which reinforced but didn't create the problem - and bad politics that it came with a totemic "betrayal" in tuition fees but neither of those was the fault line

    Appreciate it's difficult in a world of FPTP, but wouldn't it be better to have a clear world view and voter proposition than a mushy muddle of Orange Bookers and Labour-lite?

    I take the point that Lib Dems need to get better at defining ourselves in our own terms rather than by comparison with the big two. Though, at the end of the day, the left edge of Conservative voters and the right edge of Labour voters are always going to be the two most fruitful places for us to hunt for votes. It's quite hard to attract both of these groups simultaneously, of course... I saw nothing at all to attract me to the Lib Dems during the Kennedy years but everything I needed to be attracted was offered during the Clegg years - even though I still carried on voting Conservative for quite a while before finally realising where I belonged.

    That's not what they were offering: Laws and Cable had fundamentally different world views. As soon as they chose Tories or Labour they would piss off a large cohort of voters. Appealing to the Blairites and the Camsroonites would be coherent but I'm not sure viable. (That policy is more effectively pursued by the Liberal Unionists who have significant influence inside the Tories)
    If the Tories plough on towards a hard Brexit through increasingly stormy seas, it isnt inconceivable to see them losing a lot of their moderate supporters. Similarly Labour if, either, Corbyn wins and fails in government, one more heave from the left leaves him still short of power, or a forced decision brings home the Brexit chickens.

    The LDs are essentially waiting for events beyond their control to force a chunk of the electorate to give them a fresh look.
    The Tories are not pursuing soft Brexit but now May is willing to pay a large sum to the EU as an exit bill to start FTA talks tgey are not ploughing on towards a hard Brexit either.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 9,919
    Tory Austerity Collaborators.
  • JonWCJonWC Posts: 111
    I think the main cause is a policy on Brexit that anyone who has negotiated in the primary school playground can see is utterly stupid, not to mention toxic in the independent-minded parts of Britain where they used to be strong. That combined with abandonment of liberalism and democracy.. and I'm probably being generous given I was a member for 28 years and many times a LibDem candidate.
  • Scott_P said:

    rcs1000 said:

    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.

    Chihuahua is the Radiohead of dogs...

    Discusss.
    If we get a dog, we'll get a Labrador.

    A proper dog. That actually does something.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    edited November 2017
    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Lib Dems, oh dear oh dear, oh dear.

    Clegg was a fool. Not much more that can be said.

    Clegg put country before party in seeing that the GFC needed a stable government. Confidence and supply might have been better for party.

    No risk of any other party leader doing the same.
    Clegg put ego before party. The Cleggasm and being the one to return the Lib Dems to office went to his head and destroyed his judgement.
    Clegg is the only LD leader to have been part of the government since Lloyd George, something even Jeremy Thorpe did not manage in February 1974, that will always be a huge achievement for the LDs under Clegg.

    Of course it is perfectly possible on current polls Corbyn has to rely on LD confidence and supply (probably along with the SNP) to get into and stay in government after the next general election, which would give the LDs great influence over the direction of a Labour government in a way it has not had since the Callaghan years.
  • Phew - only 4 wickets down at the close. Take that as a start all day long!
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    A golden period of good government? In some ways perhaps.
    An end to the daft reshuffles of Blair, creation of the OBR, an increased role for Cabinet with Cameron largely letting his Ministers get on with things.

    Ultimately though the basic economic strategy taken was wrong in my view and led to the worst recovery from a recession in 50+ years.

    Hmmm.

    Two comments can be made in response to that:

    1) There had already been three years where Labour pursuing a different strategy had failed to make noticeably more headway than the Coalition did at equally high cost;

    2) It was the worst recession since at least 1931 and arguably (in this country at least) 1878 so it is not surprising the recovery was slow and uneven.

    Both governments deserve some credit - Brown and Darling for keeping the banks alive and inflation low, the Coalition for managing to avoid mass unemployment while slowly reigning in our vast deficit. Brown's record is marred by the significant role his misguided regulatory reforms played in the crisis. The coalition's by setting over-ambitious targets and failing to meet them.

    But sometimes you have to accept there are no easy answers and no quick fixes...
    Absolutely true - and more or less ignored by the electorate most of the time.

  • OchEyeOchEye Posts: 1,166
    Hammond being destroyed by Humphries, and Humphries is not even trying
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    A golden period of good government? In some ways perhaps.
    An end to the daft reshuffles of Blair, creation of the OBR, an increased role for Cabinet with Cameron largely letting his Ministers get on with things.

    Ultimately though the basic economic strategy taken was wrong in my view and led to the worst recovery from a recession in 50+ years.

    Hmmm.

    Two comments can be made in response to that:

    1) There had already been three years where Labour pursuing a different strategy had failed to make noticeably more headway than the Coalition did at equally high cost;

    2) It was the worst recession since at least 1931 and arguably (in this country at least) 1878 so it is not surprising the recovery was slow and uneven.

    I can't agree on 1 - the recovery was going well when Brown left.

    On 2 - I think it is true that there is evidence which suggests banking crises take longer to recover, but generally a deeper recession = faster recovery.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 4,294
    IanB2 said:

    rkrkrk said:

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I supported Cleggs role in the coalition, which I see as a golden period of good government. The exception is everything that Cable did, and most particularly tuition fees. Cable has to go for any chance of revival. Lamb would be the best choice, but there are others. Indeed Lamb was the best choice in 2015, though I do miss the manic energy of Tim.
    I think the Lib Dems managed to restrain some of nastier/dafter Tory ideas which sadly for them actually probably helped the Tories come 2015.

    A golden period of good government? In some ways perhaps.
    An end to the daft reshuffles of Blair, creation of the OBR, an increased role for Cabinet with Cameron largely letting his Ministers get on with things.

    Ultimately though the basic economic strategy taken was wrong in my view and led to the worst recovery from a recession in 50+ years.
    Yet no-one was advocating an alternative at the time. Despite all the bluster from Balls, the difference between his pre-2010 plan and where the LibDem-moderated Tories finished up was negligible.
    Certainly there were a lot of economists advocating at the time.
    Whether Labour would have held their nerve and carried on their strategy I don't know.
    And you're right that Osborne reversed course partially in time for the election.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 9,978

    Tory Austerity Collaborators.

    Must be quite galling to realise that the LDs have been in Governemnt more recently than labour, eh?
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    ydoethur said:

    DavidL said:

    Brilliant piece of fielding by Lyon but a seriously good effort by Vince too.

    He really did score some runs then?

    I was assuming my Cricinfo app had gone wrong.

    Credit where it's due. Vince showed excellent application, and I don't think anyone tipped him to outscore Cook and Root combined...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 18,540

    Phew - only 4 wickets down at the close. Take that as a start all day long!

    Yup. Not enough runs (although to be fair not enough overs either), but would have definitely taken 196/4 ten hours ago as we tossed the coin.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487
    Politics can be simple. There are certain shibboleths that are associated with a party. If you break one, you destroy your party.

    If the Tories had entered the Euro they would have destroyed themselves.
    If Labour had introduced compulsory private medical insurance in the NHS they would have destroyed themselves.

    The LibDems, positioned 2000-2010 as the party of the student, got in, raised tuition fees and destroyed themselves,
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I supported Cleggs role in the coalition, which I see as a golden period of good government. The exception is everything that Cable did, and most particularly tuition fees. Cable has to go for any chance of revival. Lamb would be the best choice, but there are others. Indeed Lamb was the best choice in 2015, though I do miss the manic energy of Tim.
    "though I do miss the manic energy of Tim...." not a phrase one hears very often.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 6,168
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    I think of the Lib Dems like a pet chihuahua: a bit yappy and no one really knows what they are for, but pretty harmless and kind of cute
    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.
    Peak California!
    Careful, or I'll WhatsApp you a picture :smile:
    Your new avatar ?
    https://media1.s-nbcnews.com/i/newscms/2016_10/1009471/legally-blonde-bruiser-elle-tease-today-160311_c255c4c18d4a2f916209d27ceefa3e9a.jpg
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487
    edited November 2017
    It was not just the support of students they lost. But having u-turned on their most prominent commitment the LibDems looked like they would say anything and do anything to get into power. Trust gone overnight.

    Hopeless to position themselves as a brake on the Tories after that. No amount of Sorry videos would make a difference.

    Tragic. They are done.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 11,364
    ydoethur said:

    I voted and worked for the Libs and subsequntly voted LD for years. I felt that while they were in favour of a capitalist economy, they were leavened with a desire to help those who, for whatever reason, fell by the wayside, or otherwise struggled, and that they wanted to see a improvment in life chances for all. However, the more I see of the Coalition’s legacy, the more disillusioned I’ve become.The cuts to legal aid are but one example.

    The Coalition gave the markets a chance to steady; for those who recall 2010 we were about to hit a very serious patch had we not had a stable government, but Clegg’s big, big, mistake was to stay in Coalition for the whole Parliament. That and taking the non-office of DPM instread of a Department, where he could have had his chance to face the Commons and the country, in his own right, rather than when that snake-oil salesman Cameron let him.

    I supported Cleggs role in the coalition, which I see as a golden period of good government. The exception is everything that Cable did, and most particularly tuition fees. Cable has to go for any chance of revival. Lamb would be the best choice, but there are others. Indeed Lamb was the best choice in 2015, though I do miss the manic energy of Tim.
    Agree about tuition fees, but not sure about Cable. I have a feeling he was plotted against by Osborne and having Fallon as deputy wasn’t good. However, I’d like to see Jo Swinson take over as Leader as soon as she’s found her feet in Parliament again.
    I don't think Cable ever quite recovered from the humiliation of that Telegraph sting. Even allowing for the avoidable disaster of tuition fees, he was always a diminished figure with doubtful judgement after that.
    Good point.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    rkrkrk said:

    ydoethur said:

    rkrkrk said:

    A golden period of good government? In some ways perhaps.
    An end to the daft reshuffles of Blair, creation of the OBR, an increased role for Cabinet with Cameron largely letting his Ministers get on with things.

    Ultimately though the basic economic strategy taken was wrong in my view and led to the worst recovery from a recession in 50+ years.

    Hmmm.

    Two comments can be made in response to that:

    1) There had already been three years where Labour pursuing a different strategy had failed to make noticeably more headway than the Coalition did at equally high cost;

    2) It was the worst recession since at least 1931 and arguably (in this country at least) 1878 so it is not surprising the recovery was slow and uneven.

    I can't agree on 1 - the recovery was going well when Brown left.

    On 2 - I think it is true that there is evidence which suggests banking crises take longer to recover, but generally a deeper recession = faster recovery.
    Unemployment now half the level Brown left
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 21,832
    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    DavidL said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Charles said:

    rcs1000 said:

    jezza said:

    When was the last time the Lib Dems had a GOOD local election night? Perhaps 1995?

    They had 1000 councillors in 1979, 2000 in 1982, 3000 in 1986, 4000 in 1992, peaking at 5380 in 1995.

    From then:

    * 1995 5380
    * 1996 5110
    * 1997 4960
    * 2004 4708
    * 2006 4708
    * 2007 4406
    * 2010 3944
    * 2011 3111
    * 2012 2711
    * 2013 2576
    * 2014 2282
    * 2015 1810
    * 2016 1678
    * 2017 1674

    So between 1995 and 2010 they'd already lost 25% of their councillors, and since then they've lost 60% of the remainder.

    They are down 70% from their 1995 peak, when they held for instance East Hampshire (now 100% Tory), Guildford, Ryedale, etc.

    Now they hold only Watford, Cheltenham, Eastleigh, South Lakeland, Eastbourne, Oadby & Wigston, Sutton and Three Rivers.

    That's not like-for-like, though, as there are far fewer councillors now than in 1995 as much of the UK has gone unitary.

    On a percentage of all councillors, the LDs peaked in 2007.
    How would you view a company who's absolute revenues had been declining since 1995 and whose market share had been falling since 2007?
    The LDs have been in decline for a decade.

    That might change this year, it might not.

    But in the general scheme of these things, a decade is actually not that long. Labour councillors (as a percentage) probably fell every year between 1997 and 2010, as did Conservative between 1984 and 1997.
    Yes but by and large that was because they were in government and no one likes the government. The Lib Dems started their decline before the Coalition and have not recovered since. If Vince Cable got any coverage out of the budget yesterday I didn't see it which is unfortunate because economic analysis is his stronger suit. They just seem to have nothing to say.
    I would expect the LDs to gain councillors in 2018 and 2019, simply because UKIP is fading fast from the scene.

    But I doubt they will go anywhere, unless they can find a differentiated leader who people want to hear from.

    Vince Cable is not that man.
    I think of the Lib Dems like a pet chihuahua: a bit yappy and no one really knows what they are for, but pretty harmless and kind of cute
    We just got a chihuahua.

    I'm not sure what it's for.
    Cat food.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    Jonathan said:

    It was not just the support of students they lost. But having u-turned on their most prominent commitment the LibDems looked like they would say anything and do anything to get into power. Trust gone overnight.

    Hopeless to position themselves as a brake on the Tories after that. No amount of Sorry videos would make a difference.

    Tragic. They are done.

    On current polls far from it. No poll has Corbyn anywhere near a big enough lead for a majority so LDs could well end up holding the balance of power with the SNP and being a brake on a Corbyn minority government
  • RogerRoger Posts: 9,358
    edited November 2017
    Jonathan said:

    Cleggs destruction of the Lib Dems was a key enabler of Brexit. A tragic figure. Icarus.

    When you think about the causes of Brexit it reminds me of the history question on the origins of the first world war. 'Would it have been avoided without the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand'?

    For me the two decisive events leading to the catastrophy of Brexit both happened in 2010. First the election of Ed instead of David followed by -as you say- the Icarus like behaviour of Clegg.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,487
    edited November 2017
    The Lib Dems have a triple whammy.

    They can't revive through oppositional politics. They can't say vote LD to keep the Tories out for obvious reasons.

    They are too far behind to have an influence on govt. Their position on Brexit is irrelevant. If you are a Remainer you are better off voting Labour to modify that.

    There isn't even a Corbyn waiting in the wings to whip up the faithful. Farron was it and he failed.

    Time to start again. Failing that, their best bet is to actively target soft tory voters, presenting them as the Coalition continuity party. A small pool to fish in, but about the only hope they have.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 10,192
    Charles said:

    A lot of it is about airtime. When they were clearly the number 3 party they got decent media exposure and that helped get them across as the alternative to the big 2.

    Now they are one of the "other" group it is harder for them to differentiate and to attract the attention of the voters.

    Additionally, when you have some lingering angst amongst left wing voters that they supported the Tories in Coalition it makes it harder for them to gain ground in their natural target area, while if you really want to "stop Brexit" then surely the incentive is to vote for a party that (a) can win and (b) might - you believe - stop Brexit: i.e. Labour

    Given how Labour voted this week on Brexit why would anyone with half a brain think that Labour would reverse or soften Brexit?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,975
    OchEye said:

    Hammond being destroyed by Humphries, and Humphries is not even trying

    Hammond didn't do too badly. Humphries clearly thought he had a killer bullet with the revelation that the Chancellor's former company (now in trust) is/was apparently sitting on undeveloped land; Hammond just said he had no idea. If the story has legs it might prove mildly embarrassing for him but I cant see it as fatal.

    In the main discussion Hammond is actually right that the electoral/business/media cycle pushes politicians to make short-term decisions and ignore longer-term planning.

    Most revealing is that government is now clearly starting to realise some of the major changes (new IT and the like) that will be needed to make Brexit work. Whilst Hammond has stumped up some money, what they really need is more time.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 42,691
    Jonathan said:

    The Lib Dems have a triple whammy.

    They can't revive through oppositional politics. They can't say vote LD to keep the Tories out for obvious reasons.

    They are too far behind to have an influence on govt. Their position on Brexit is irrelevant. If you are a Remainer you are better off voting Labour to modify that.

    There isn't even a Corbyn waiting in the wings to whip up the faithful. Farron was it and he failed.

    Time to start again.

    The LDs will likely have more influence on 6 to 9% with the 2 parties neck and neck than they did on 19 and 23% in 2001 and 2005 when Labour won majorities
This discussion has been closed.