Most commentators are saying the Conservatives have used the Lib Dems as a shield for various things, including this vote. Vince Cable isn't happy, attacking the Conservatives as "ruthless, calculating and very tribal". He should remember how they have helped pass many Lib Dem policies; even supported HIS scheme for much higher tuition fees, as John Redwood reminds us today:
"Conservatives did not make him do that... ...There was no group of Conservatives designing the tuition fee scheme, no group pressing for it. It was not Conservative policy. The tuition fee scheme was designed by Dr Cable, and pressed by him."Update: Angela Harbutt has a great analysis of the poor 'Yes' campaign on Liberal Vision. I particularly liked this bit - and the BBC with it's Guardian over-represntation of speakers, guests, analyses etc - should take note:
"The YES campaign was eminently winnable. But it ended up being run by readers of the Guardian for readers of the Guardian. Readers of this newspaper are about 1% of the voting electorate – and are also a statistically extreme group. Their views do not chime remotely with mainstream British opinion. There is no purist Guardian editorial proposition that could ever come close to winning a referendum in the UK."
8 comments:
Could be seeing the end of a loveless marriage of convenience or is the prospect of having to have another GE just to horrific for Lib Dem to contemplate?
I think they'll do anything to avoid a GE just yet! I have just posted about their 'list of demands'! Not sure the marriage will be over, just more at arm's length. Apparently today both Osborne, Clegg and others have backed the coalition. Cameron already had and even Cable, despite his 'ruthless' description was saying that now it's back to business NOT back to the drawing board. And Huhne saying that an improving economy etc will see theri support return; he may have a point because on the surface they just got a kick-in but look at numbers of votes and, as ever, they're right up there but just not enough - as per the last GE, 80% of what Labour got in votes but 10% of the seats (or thereabouts)
As an observer and not with any clue as to how I vote, after the kicking Lib Dems received on the AV referendum and local council elections last week, if they walked out of the coaltion where could they go?
If they decided to switch sides and support Labour to put the breaks on some proposals or stop Government policies being passed, in the eyes of the electorate they've blotted their copy book.
Cynically, the leader of the Lib Dems says he'll see that they'll make their voices heard more, why just now?
Again, its probably too late to win over the electorate.
One such policy that was singled out for special treatment are the changes to the NHS, a debate was held on the NHS yesterday and some Lib Dems did not vote and one MP was said to have voted for and against(His way of protesting)
The Government won the debate with a majority of 53, so much for making a difference.
Its not going to happen...
I can see the same thing happening regarding proposals to change how society cares for the sick, vulnerable and elderly.
I think the LDs are all over the palce at the moemnt...and it highlights excatly the problem: at a local level they are completely different from national level, same is true for north and south whereas both Labour and Conservative are fairly (although not completely) similar wherever they are and locally/natioanl party i.e. a SW Tory is pretty much the same animal as a NE tory...are there any NE Tories? ;-)
I can't think of one...in the last national election the Conservative candidate did not appear to canvess the local population and he lived in Kent and worked in IT in London I think.
It wasn't going to work...
BTW I'm making the next bit up just to illustrate a point...
78% of those who voted on the AV issue said no...
Sounds impressive doesn't it?
But only 42% per cent of the population bothered to vote in the first place.
So the 78% is actually a percentage of the 42% who did put an "X" on a ballot paper, see how statitistics can be slewed to suit someone's or a party's agenda.
But the media concentrated on the larger percentage rather than the actual turnout.
Exactly right Gildy, not sure if you remember my post from May last year on the stats after last year, very flattering until you look a bit deeper, for instance:
"Neil Kinnock's 'disaster' in 1992 was with almost a million MORE votes than David Cameron won yesterday.
In John Major's Conservative 'slaughter' in 1997 he got MORE votes than Tony Blair won in 2005"
That is very interesting...
You know we are probably as well informed on politics as any reporter who covers the subject in the newspapers or on tv and radio and we do it without the contacts they have or the access they have to places like the Houses of Parliament.
Post a Comment