The Liberal Democrats

law74 said:
Not sure off the top of my head, but it was certainly the most they have ever had, and were ahead of lot of those who were elected on first preference votes, and would have been in double figures in the assembly if it was based on first preference votes only per constituency (some constituencies return 6 members to the assembly).
And the point still stands, STV is different and preferable to PR
Click to expand...
Make a claim but can't even check Wikipedia?

So far as I can see, no TUV candidate has ever got more than 20% first preferences in any vote in any election (and anyone near that would be elected).

Like I said, you need second and third preferences to get elected, and TUV is unlikely to get more of them with this alliance:

"The TUV, which did not run in the 2019 General Election, has formed an electoral alliance with Reform UK ahead of July’s poll and is standing in 14 constituencies in Northern Ireland."
 
Vic said:
Make a claim but can't even check Wikipedia?

So far as I can see, no TUV candidate has ever got more than 20% first preferences in any vote in any election (and anyone near that would be elected).

Like I said, you need second and third preferences to get elected, and TUV is unlikely to get more of them with this alliance:

"The TUV, which did not run in the 2019 General Election, has formed an electoral alliance with Reform UK ahead of July’s poll and is standing in 14 constituencies in Northern Ireland."
Click to expand...
The reason why I used TUV as my example for why STV is preferable to PR is that they have a small dedicated core of support while the majority (of Unionists never mind the entire electorate) find their policies repulsive.
Under FPTP they would have a number of seats, under PR they would have a greater number of seats than they have under STV.
Under STV we retain our constituency basis for government Anne our elected MP's would have a general support of the people, and every vote would count, leading to greater accountability.
 
This is where the Lib Dems need to display a level of street smarts I'm not entirely sure they possess.

This is such an obvious tactical voting situation, and yet they don't seem to be getting the message across. Lib Dems cannot win this seat, but they can take out Badendoch and get themselves 1 seat closer to being the opposition.

The fact Labour are putting this kind of stuff out suggests they aren't playing ball.

 
law74 said:
The reason why I used TUV as my example for why STV is preferable to PR is that they have a small dedicated core of support while the majority (of Unionists never mind the entire electorate) find their policies repulsive.
Under FPTP they would have a number of seats, under PR they would have a greater number of seats than they have under STV.
Under STV we retain our constituency basis for government Anne our elected MP's would have a general support of the people, and every vote would count, leading to greater accountability.
Click to expand...
Then we disagree only in that you don't think STV is a proportional voting system. I think the guy who invented it thought it was PR and in the Colonies it was "British proportional representation" (good enough for the natives but not for the rulers).
 
domalino said:
This is where the Lib Dems need to display a level of street smarts I'm not entirely sure they possess.

This is such an obvious tactical voting situation, and yet they don't seem to be getting the message across. Lib Dems cannot win this seat, but they can take out Badendoch and get themselves 1 seat closer to being the opposition.

The fact Labour are putting this kind of stuff out suggests they aren't playing ball.

Click to expand...

Are you expecting the LibDems to ask people not to vote LibDem?
 
Vic said:
Are you expecting the LibDems to ask people not to vote LibDem?
Click to expand...
It wouldn't be "asking people not to vote for them" but prioritising resources (time, people, money etc), to seats where they are most likely to unseat a self-servative and from some of the interviews a couple of weeks ago, that seemed to be their intention
 
law74 said:
It wouldn't be "asking people not to vote for them" but prioritising resources (time, people, money etc), to seats where they are most likely to unseat a self-servative and from some of the interviews a couple of weeks ago, that seemed to be their intention
Click to expand...

I’m pretty sure from what I’ve heard from certain constituency residents on other online forums (mainly the UK politics subreddit) they are doing that. And I’ve also heard that Labour are reciprocating.

Obviously, that’s not at all good evidence just online rumour. But we know they have focused their leaflet distribution on the seats they can actually win as there was an article a few weeks back talking about them sending millions of leaflets to the Home Counties/South West and none in some areas like Wales and the midlands.

If there’s one thing the LibDems have it’s a really good ground game. It’s possibly the only reason they’re still relevant.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
I’m pretty sure from what I’ve heard from certain constituency residents on other online forums (mainly the UK politics subreddit) they are doing that. And I’ve also heard that Labour are reciprocating.

Obviously, that’s not at all good evidence just online rumour. But we know they have focused their leaflet distribution on the seats they can actually win as there was an article a few weeks back talking about them sending millions of leaflets to the Home Counties/South West and none in some areas like Wales and the midlands.

If there’s one thing the LibDems have it’s a really good ground game. It’s possibly the only reason they’re still relevant.
Click to expand...
And it's easier this time as they don't have to say different things in Tory seats they want to win and in Labour seats they want to win.
 
Vic said:
And it's easier this time as they don't have to say different things in Tory seats they want to win and in Labour seats they want to win.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think part of the strength in their ground game is the autonomy they give to local candidates to say the things that will get the local residents onside. That’s why they have a manifesto that says they’ll build 380k houses per year but no doubt their candidates are out there assuring people “they won’t be built here”.

I mentioned in an earlier post that this was the one thing I’m most cynical on with LibDems. NIMBYism is a real problem but one they can ignore as they’ll never have the seats to deliver their manifesto.
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
Yes, I think part of the strength in their ground game is the autonomy they give to local candidates to say the things that will get the local residents onside. That’s why they have a manifesto that says they’ll build 380k houses per year but no doubt their candidates are out there assuring people “they won’t be built here”.

I mentioned in an earlier post that this was the one thing I’m most cynical on with LibDems. NIMBYism is a real problem but one they can ignore as they’ll never have the seats to deliver their manifesto.
Click to expand...
I have a hunch (with zero evidence to back it up) that NIMBYISM is not as big an issue as 5,10 or 20 year's ago.
A lot of people are realising that their son, daughter, grandson or granddaughter will never be able to buy their own house, and in places not even afford to rent.
For some having a 35 year old son still at home will be enough for them to support large-scale house building, for others it will be the thought of their children having to move a couple of hundred miles away to cheaper houses, especially if they have young children will be the cause
 
SkyBlueFlux said:
Yes, I think part of the strength in their ground game is the autonomy they give to local candidates to say the things that will get the local residents onside. That’s why they have a manifesto that says they’ll build 380k houses per year but no doubt their candidates are out there assuring people “they won’t be built here”.

I mentioned in an earlier post that this was the one thing I’m most cynical on with LibDems. NIMBYism is a real problem but one they can ignore as they’ll never have the seats to deliver their manifesto.
Click to expand...
Happens in local planning meetings too. Opposition councillors vote against new housing, knowing others will approve (because refusal can cost many thousands of pounds in a lost appeal) - even though planning is not supposed to be party political. But then some will go public on "we opposed it but the majority party rubber-stamped it". What they don't clock is that while elderly NIMBYs have objected to the plans, their (or someone else's) grandchildren will be queueing up to buy the houses off plan.

We had one village where 100 new houses were in the local plan. The objectors said it would add to the traffic problems - which they'd caused by moving into new houses in the village over the last 30 years.

I don't think we've seen the end of NIMBYism, but politicians are wising up to knowing that for every objector there's a young person or couple want a house somewhere but aren't writing to support every housing application. And it's a recognised factor that opposition to new housing boosts house prices to the benefit of existing homeowners who object.
 
Last edited:
Mike Martin, ex soldier Lib Dem MP for Tunbridge Wells has just said he was worried about being on the leaked Afghan list because he selected people to be on it. Worried after publicly declaring he might be on it.....hmmm
 
johnny crossan said:
Mike Martin, ex soldier Lib Dem MP for Tunbridge Wells has just said he was worried about being on the leaked Afghan list because he selected people to be on it. Worried after publicly declaring he might be on it.....hmmm
Click to expand...
Yeah.... that is proper weird.

"I'm worried I might be on it because I did something that would mean I should be on it.....

Taliban sat at home taking notes...

Set yourself up FFS
 
Lib Dems are polling well. They will probably be the opposition after the next general election. Labour have lost lots of voters in hard knocks "red wall" seats to Reform, and Tories have lost traditional true blue right wingers to them as well. Unlike Labour, Lib Dem's main support never came from hard knocks working class, but liberal-leaning middle-class types in rural England (e.g., Lake District). Demographically they have this advantage. Unlike Labour and the Tories, who compete with Reform for a similar demographic, Lib Dems don't need to fish in that pond to be a credible force in terms of seats won.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top