Clegg - the least popular party leader in British political history

[eastbank 10]

The reason they have all converged is because they and almost all economists agree that the only successful way to run an economy is by free market economics. Pretty much what the Tories have said all along.

There is of course the occasional loony who wants to go backwards to socialism, but thankfully not too many of them. Sheffield has more than its fair share of said loonies.

 

not many...remember when sheffield council was full of loonies....student games anyone....

[Mister M 1,625]

2.6% return to limp over the line in 6th place in the Newark by-election. How people can back the Lib Dems with a straight face is beyond me. But as a few on here have started harping on about the Conservatives, I've a few points I'd like to put forward.

 

The 'Tories wanted less regulation in Banking, not more. Therefore more derivatives and criminally mis-leading loans packages would have been traded and we'd have been worse off. Nobody on either side of the benches objected to RBS buying ABM Amro in 2007 (and indeed it was a much sought after bank). That was wholly responsible for putting RBS is the poo and why they needed bailing out. Nobody either checked the Halifax's bloated and risky balance sheet, which made Lloyds such a poisonous 'asset' in the years after the crash.

 

But they HAD to be bought out, because the amount of jobs lost would have been irreparable. Interestingly, while the Tories have had the reigns and majority shares in RBS and Lloyds, they never stopped them from putting viable businesses under to increase the core Tier 1 ratio's that the FSA craved so badly.

 

The Conservatives always repairing the economy is a joke also. They mullered it in the 80's and left a legacy which had it faults and left us partly in the mess we are in today. Scaling back all health and safety, green agenda, employee protection and minimum wage, demonising Unions and industrial dispute, forcing people out of social housing into private rented accommodation largely in the hands of Tory voters might well be some peoples idea of a healthy economy, but it isn't mine. It's my idea of a class war.

 

---------- Post added 06-06-2014 at 05:11 ----------

 

And do you know what, while I'm at it, why don't you throw in spiteful blanket changes to benefits such as bedroom tax and the cutting of the rate of interest paid to mortgages for peoples housing benefit (usually pensioners in my experience). Trapping people in properties they cannot afford with no alternative is not progressive, it is a complete outrage.

 

Tax avoidance on the front bench (anyone remember the Pamorama about G Osborne and family's Cayman Islands tax havens? ((or was it Bermuda?)). Allowing Vodafone, Starbucks, Google, Dre Beats et al to get away with not paying BILLIONS in tax while trumpeting the achievements in tax collection. Not fooling anyone.

 

Using the London Riots to justify getting rid of workplace Health and Safety laws was an interesting approach to ideological legislative change. Savage cuts to Labour held councils while increasing budgets of Tory-friendly councils and key marginal seats.

 

The Tories (and by association, now the Lib Dems) are the most spiteful, horrible party I've ever known and some might say more Thatcherite than Thatcher herself ever would have dared to be.

 

Trumpeting Gay Marriage on the Lib Dem watch? don't make me laugh, Labour carried that over the line, Tories opposed it in droves and even the Lib Dems couldn't get all their MP's to back it (see Sarah Teather et al).

 

Lib Dems, when they jumped into bed with the above betrayed most of the people who voted for them. But the ones I feel most sorry for is the young student voters who will have been voting for the first time in their lives and had their vote/trust ripped apart and thrown back in their face. Some of them may never vote again. Who could blame them?

 

Disgraceful, both parties. Labour aren't perfect and I don't support them (I voted TUSC) but they are at least well meaning and the best of a bad bunch.

 

A very good post Twirler, you should post on here more often

[RutlandFlyer 10]

The reason they have all converged is because they and almost all economists agree that the only successful way to run an economy is by free market economics. Pretty much what the Tories have said all along.

 

I doubt anyone who knows more than a little about economics could think that. The free market is a very useful tool, great for driving innovation and efficiency and for finding out how things work, but it has its limitations. The biggest is the inability for free markets to effectively regulate themselves. History is littered with examples of markets that have collapsed catastrophically because even though everyone in them knew they weren't sustainable, and there were clearly actions that could've been taken to make the market more sustainable, but no one would implement them because they couldn't risk losing out to their competitors. Usually these are markets or industry based around a certain resource, like fishing, logging or mining, but it applied equally to the last financial crisis.

 

I don't think there's any party in the UK (or much of the developed world) that doesn't see the free market as the primary driver of a nation's economy. Where they differ is how they respond to a failing market. The Tories...don't really respond. They'll let the market crash so the phoenix can rise from the ashes. If your fingers got burnt...too bad. It's no coincidence that a lot of Tory MPs and practically all of their backers are rich and powerful enough not to feel the effects of a market crash, and rich and powerful enough to make a killing in the recovery.

 

Labour, historically, have been more interventional, so they'll act to try and stop a market from crashing, or keep it on a short leash to stop it getting out of hand. When done with a light touch, I feel that's the best way to go about things on the whole. You sacrifice a bit of growth for less boom-and-bust, which should equate to a happier and more stable society. Taken too far, though, interventionalism can breed inefficiency and stifle competitiveness and Labour have been guilty of that at times. As far as today's Labour party goes, it's hard to say. They've certainly taken a step to the left of where Tony Blair's government was but they're still very economically liberal in most ways. On the other hand, they're proposing some strong and rather simplistic actions to regulate the domestic energy market, so who knows.

 

No one's really socialist anymore, not even the Greens. Everyone's liberal, it's just a case of whether they let that liberalism run unfettered (Tories, UKIP, Orange Book Lib Dems) or whether they're social liberals and seek to attach some social responsibility to their free market liberalism (Labour, Greens and, er, Nick Clegg?). But it's clear from this and a few other posts you've made, Ron, that you don't really understand what liberalism or socialism really are. For instance, you talk about how much you dislike liberals without seeming to realise that the Tory party you support is a very liberal one.

[Ballista 10]

LABOUR are useless, however, I hope they win the next election , as long as the scots vote yes. With the scots gone, labour will **** up, lose the 2020 election, then they will never win another.

[blake 10]

the 2010 election, like 1992, was 'the one to lose', not next year's, 2015. You can be absolutely, totally sure that both Labour and the Tories will want to creep over the line and get a majority. If Labour loses next year like last time they won't comfort themselves with the idea that it might have been a good election to lose like they did in 2010.

 

back to the topic title unlike before I think Clegg might actually have a bit of a run for his money retaining his seat, Hallam, in May. Although I did not think he would have too much trouble before, now that it is obvious that the Liberal vote has collapsed completely and there is no way back for them, I think Hallam may be closer than I thought. What will the Hallam Labour voters who voted Liberal in 1997 to get the Tories out and give the Liberals Hallam in the first place and carried on voting for them ever since, do now. Though they won't vote Tory, that is for sure, if enough of them are fed up enough with the Liberals in general and Clegg in particular to vote for someone else or stay at home, then the Tories just might slip through in Hallam. Although Labour would much prefer that Clegg retains the seat to deny the Tories even one gain their column.

[Mecky 10]

What will the Hallam Labour voters who voted Liberal in 1997 to get the Tories out and give the Liberals Hallam in the first place and carried on voting for them ever since, do now. Though they won't vote Tory, that is for sure, if enough of them are fed up enough with the Liberals in general and Clegg in particular to vote for someone else or stay at home, then the Tories just might slip through in Hallam.

 

To be honest I think the Liberals are doomed nationally and not just in Sheffield. You didn't mention UKIP though and they pose the biggest threat to the tories but come the election, the waverers will quit UKIP and vote tory again especially if it means Labour might get in and what's more, they'll do it even if they are personally adversely affected by tory policies.

[blake 10]

To be honest I think the Liberals are doomed nationally and not just in Sheffield. You didn't mention UKIP though and they pose the biggest threat to the tories but come the election, the waverers will quit UKIP and vote tory again especially if it means Labour might get in and what's more, they'll do it even if they are personally adversely affected by tory policies.

 

UKIP won't make much headway in Hallam. It is far too educated a seat. Heeley is the Sheffield seat where UKIP will pick up the most % of votes, Liberal are the second party to Labour in Heeley, again what will happen to their vote when it collapses in Heeley which it will. Some will go Labour, some UKIP, some even Tory. Heeley was a Conservative seat between 1970-74. UKIP might pick up quite a few more ex-Labour votes in Heeley than they and the BNP got between them last time, if Heeley's Labour vote falls, and if more of the ex-Liberal votes turn Tory than Labour, then there just might be an upset in Heeley.

 

the Liberal collapse means that Central, which Labour only narrowly retained by only 60 votes in 2010 is no longer much of a marginal. Central, so close in 2010 is a lot safer now for Labour. I would say Heeley and Hallam are more marginal than Central is now.

[Mecky 10]

UKIP won't make much headway in Hallam.

 

Yeah that's what I'm saying

[retep 68]

UKIP won't make much headway in Hallam. It is far too educated a seat. Heeley is the Sheffield seat where UKIP will pick up the most % of votes, Liberal are the second party to Labour in Heeley, again what will happen to their vote when it collapses in Heeley which it will. Some will go Labour, some UKIP, some even Tory. Heeley was a Conservative seat between 1970-74. UKIP might pick up quite a few more ex-Labour votes in Heeley than they and the BNP got between them last time, if Heeley's Labour vote falls, and if more of the ex-Liberal votes turn Tory than Labour, then there just might be an upset in Heeley.

 

the Liberal collapse means that Central, which Labour only narrowly retained by only 60 votes in 2010 is no longer much of a marginal. Central, so close in 2010 is a lot safer now for Labour. I would say Heeley and Hallam are more marginal than Central is now.

 

 

Is that why they voted for a party that's likely to disappear?

[dosxuk 10]

Is that why they voted for a party that's likely to disappear?

 

Back in 2010 it was far from disappearing, and they were on the verge of an earthquake heralding the start of three party politics in the UK.

 

How quickly things can change...

[retep 68]

Back in 2010 it was far from disappearing, and they were on the verge of an earthquake heralding the start of three party politics in the UK.

 

How quickly things can change...

 

Looks like they fell down a labcon crack somewhere in liar valley.

[ECCOnoob 1,043]

because some people like to think they're better than others ... even though they're not

 

Some people are better than others.

Socially, professionally, academically, financially, and/or morally.

 

That's the way its always been and will always be, no matter what Government is in charge.

 

There will always be the hard workers and the everything on a plate. There will always be rich and poor. Nothing is gonna change that no matter how strong the utopian dreams are.

 

Politics used to be for what was best for the country. They did not care about how the public reacted or how much we screamed or protested. Their decisions were just that.

 

They did not care about how their "image" looked or how "popular" they were because most of the population did not know jack about what is required. Unfortunately the media sided with us masses and fueled this drive to be "liked" rather than what is needed.

 

I recently watched an interesting clip about Roy Jenkins MP. He was hated and despised by the masses and press because of his radical reforms. But he ploughed on anyway becuase according to the report "he knew it was good for us"

 

Those reforms went on to transform the country with decriminalisation of Homosexuality, abortion, divorce and removal of the death penalty.

 

However, look at the state of affairs now. Nobody would ever dare to do that now. Public opinion would be screaming from the pages of the press and media would hound such a politician until they were driven out or backed down.

 

Nobody likes to the TOLD they have to eat their greens but sometimes you have to.

 

...Unfortunatley now thanks to public hysteria, opinion polls, talking head interviews, lobbyists and media minipulation drowning out reality of what is needed nobody ever will.

Edited June 8, 2014 by ECCOnoob