Options
How do we go about getting a Lib/Dem government?
HillmanImp
Posts: 2,874 Forum Member
✭✭✭
Clearly the UK needs a Lib/Dem government and most people I speak to say they would vote "Lib/Dem" if they felt they would win the election.
So, assuming the vast majority of the UK are in fact Lib/Dems how do we go about getting them to vote Lib/Dem?
Surely, the boot should be on the other foot, the other parties desperately trying to un-liberalise UK voters?
Where are the Lib/Dem marketing boys/girls going wrong? Surely voting Lib/Dem is a slam dunk - who in their right mind would vote for any other party? I mean, almost by definition a Brit is a liberal person. The CofE is liberalism at prayer.
So, assuming the vast majority of the UK are in fact Lib/Dems how do we go about getting them to vote Lib/Dem?
Surely, the boot should be on the other foot, the other parties desperately trying to un-liberalise UK voters?
Where are the Lib/Dem marketing boys/girls going wrong? Surely voting Lib/Dem is a slam dunk - who in their right mind would vote for any other party? I mean, almost by definition a Brit is a liberal person. The CofE is liberalism at prayer.
0
Comments
That's the only way OP!
I totally agree. Its a mystery to me why so few actually vote for them.
What type of yoik would vote ukip ? Are we sure the counts are accurate?
I thought this thread was about Lib Dems, but anyway what do you mean by "type" ?
Isn't it everyone's fundamental right to vote for which ever party they wish to vote for without being called names by people who don't agree with them, be that Lib Dem, UKIP, Labour or Tory ?
The Lib Dems were not a party in the 1910's.
The FibDems have now lost too much credibility with people from the left and middle that used to vote for them, plus when people in the pub describe them as lying backstabbing judases you know their finished, at least until they get rid of pinocchio.
No that is not a fundamental right.
My point is what turns a typical liberal brit into someone who votes for something else?
If you go to nations where brits go to live - the Liberals often win. In Canada the "New Democrats" or "Liberals" are huge. In Australia nearly every other party has the word "Liberal"....
Why is the UK the odd man out?
I am not saying that you did, but , it isn't really a good enough reason to vote for a Party because you do not 'like' the others for instance. You should really read manifestos, and determine which Party has the most, or most important policies as far as you are concerned. Some people will vote for a candidate because they like that person - but, although you may have a popular MP, he may not see 'eye to eye' with you over your political preferences.
It could be difficult to decide at times, because there may be policies which find favour with you , but which are not all invested in one Party......so, you then have to decide which one offers the most as far as you are concerned.
You shouldn't be deterred from voting LibDems because of Clegg - as unpalatable as that individual is, if you still identify with LibDem policies. The policies are more important than the individual leaders - but Clegg, who I detest incidentally, as well as the LibDems, did what he believed best to put the LibDems back into a governmental role, after they had been in the wilderness for some time - and just like the Tories, they had to compromise on political issues which upset both sets of supporters, but that is the inevitable price to be paid when governing in a coalition .
Clegg made it clear at the time that they would work with the largest party first. The largest party was always going to be the Conservatives.
So if you were in genuine belief that a Con-Lib government wouldn't happen, you must have been living under a rock. Everyone else expected it.
Of course it is a fundamental right for the electorate to vote for any standing candidate that he wishes, without being called 'names' by someone who disagrees with them. It is one thing to provide credible evidence to support a claim that it would, in your opinion, be ridiculous to try to elect such a candidate because......, but that is no reason to insult someone.........unless of course they insult you or someone else first!!!!!
When I look at the performance of politicians, I can readily understand why people would think that way. There are some who don't even register to vote, some for the very same reason. Me, I consciously decide not to vote for any of the rabble who purportedly are elected to run this country. Politicians look at people like me and think we are ripe for conversion, referring to us as non-committed voters. The smile left the face of one senior politician when I told him I was a committed non-voter.
won by a Party / candidate whose policies are contrary to what we believe.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim it is a duty - but even high support for a minor Party will indicate the growing unrest in the electorate, which may prevent those in office from ignoring public opinion,and take due note for a change..........exactly the effect that UKIP is currently having.
I'll vote for them if they put a population cap of 65 million in their manifesto.
1. Restore trust (i.e. remove anyone who made a personal pledge and then broke it)
2. Get some likeable politicians (OK, that's an oxymoron)
3. Get some policies people like
4. Rebuild / build constituency organisations
5. Ensure there are enough scandal free, intelligent, local and available candidates across the UK
6. Ensure enough funding to run a proper campaign
All easy to do, and if carried out, we should have a Lib Dem government in 70-80 years (i.e. when the memory of Clegg and Alexander has faded from human consciousness)
Labour seems to prove that you don't need to do any of that and still win. Strange, huh? The list of liars/cheats/idiots who are still Labour MPs because they're in safe seats where a donkey with a red rosette will win is quite large, the rest get in through being made Lords, and the party as a whole has done very little as far as keeping election promises goes
We still have leaflets from the last general election telling us the only way to keep the Tories out is to vote for them as Labour could not win here, could put them on the windows this time round with the word lies written across them?
What I was referring to was this. Abstentions are not added to any party's total vote. In 2010 we had a 65% turnout, meaning that 35% abstained. Of the actual votes cast, the Conservatives got 36%, Labour 29% and the LibDems 23%. So, their shares of the vote were 23%, 19% and 15% of the electoral register.
So, if everyone who abstained had voted LibDem, the LibDems would have got 35 + 15% of the vote ie 50%. Electoral calculus suggests the LibDems would then have got 567 seats. This would have given a new meaning to the idea of