Nick Clegg is feeling sad

MaxwellBygraves

Nick Clegg is feeling down today as the Liberal Democrats lost their deposit in two of the three by-elections yesterday and in Rotherham came eighth place. They came third in Middlesbrough and fourth in Croydon North.

Labour won all 3 of the by-elections and won over 60% of the total vote in Croydon and Middlesbrough. All three of the by-elections were in nominal Labour seats.

The Tories came fifth in Rotherham, second in Croydon and fourth in Middlesbrough. Out of the three contests, the highest percentage they polled was 16%.

Arguably the best night was had by UKIP and the BNP. They came second and third respectively in Rotherham, beating both the Tories and Lib Dems. UKIP came second in Middlesbrough, beating Tories and Lib Dems, and third in Croydon beating the Lib Dems.

Poor old Nick. They're making a habit of losing their deposit.

Here's a breakdown of votes cast from all three by-elections combined:

bompington

And is there any point to your post other than tribal gloating? Not that tribal gloating's necessarily a bad thing, of course ;-)

GiantMike

I really like Nick Clegg and the more that other people dislike him, the more I'm going to support him and his fantastic party.





Come on Nick!

BillyMansell

GiantMike wrote:

I really like Nick Clegg and the more that other people dislike him, the more I'm going to support him and his fantastic party.





Come on Nick!

So that's you and his mum who love him.

The LibDems will be remembered as the party who sold their beliefs for a moment of Tory glory.

I would say we are moving to a two party state but as all parties are right of centre it's hard to distinguish between them but the Tories prove themselves as utter scum every time.

MaxwellBygraves

bompington wrote:

And is there any point to your post other than tribal gloating? Not that tribal gloating's necessarily a bad thing, of course ;-)

Bomp you must know me well enough by know to know that I'd never turn down an opportunity to knock Nick Clegg

CiB

I wouldn't have described Rotherham as 'nominally Labour'. Like they said, you could pin a red rosette on a passing donkey and it would get in up there.

Do the Tories really bother campaigning in places like this? It's money down the pan, trying to boost the share in a mid-term election in a nailed-on safe Labour seat. Better to shrug the shoulders and ignore it. In 3 weeks everyone will have forgotten where these three by-elections were anyway.

dynamicbrick

Nothing like a bit of Labour - Tory internet forum bile on a Friday afternoon to get everyone going.

The fundamental problem is that no party represents anything or anyone save for themselves, hence they're seeking power for power's sake. This is why the cabinet and shadow cabinet is effectively nothing a bunch of former public school prefects which too much time on their hands. Even the ultra-Tory Thatcher was the daughter of a greengrocer FFS. As for Labour, just like the Tories and Libs, quite why they of all people should think that leaving university and going straight into the political party system prepares anyone to run a bloody country, I don't know.

I digress. Power for power's sake. So, hand on heart, tell me what the three main parties stand for, and who they represent. Put your tribalism aside for moment, forget the miner's strike, forget the Gordon Brown tax and spend spend spend, forget the three day week, forget it all - take each three for what they are right now, not what they used to represent, or used to have in charge. Go look at the three main websites - power for power's sake.

When was the last time any of them actually undertook anything worthwhile for the greater good of the country, rather than pandering to pressure groups and desperately worrying about the next General Election? Power for power's sake.

Squarepants

Such is my distain for all things political it's only recently that I found out the tories and the conservatives are the same party.

They're now known as the conservatories which is the only plus/humarous point surrounding politics I can think of.

CiB

dynamicbrick wrote:

...hence they're seeking power for power's sake.
...
I digress. Power for power's sake.

This glib dismissive waft that claims they're only in for its own sake is a bit petty. They're not. A very good reason for wanting power is because Party A believes that its own approach is much better than the other side's approach therefore it's in everyone's interests to hang onto or claim back that power. Party B believes exactly the same but from a different standpoint. Each side earnestly believes that their way is better for the country, for the economy, for our standing in the world. Claiming that the only reason anyone wants to do it is that they just want that power is a bit shallow. It's a belief that the country, the population and the world needs Approach A over Approach B. It's up to us to elect the one that we believe.

Squarepants

^^ that and they can claim a second home tax free and fleece the public in various other ways..

MaxwellBygraves

Guys stop the rowing you're making Nick sad

fevmeister

Come on Tories!

MaxwellBygraves

Fevmeister wrote:

Come on Tories!

Er voting has finished and been counted. They didn't win.

bianchimoon

Squarepants wrote:

Such is my distain for all things political it's only recently that I found out the tories and the conservatives are the same party.

They're now known as the conservatories which is the only plus/humarous point surrounding politics I can think of.

Years back I discovered that the conservative, liberal and labour are in fact the same party, all branches of the SNITT organisation, and also that parties such as UKiP are hoping to join SNITT soon as well. Isn't it great that in these times of worldwide division, differences and trouble our political parties have such a unified approach to politics and will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. I do understand, that before they can make our lives better, richer, safer they must of course use themselves their families and friends as guinea pigs to see if prosperity and privilege are worthwhile for the masses.

DesB3rd

that and they can claim a second home tax free and fleece the public in various other ways..

I’d be careful with that one; many left MPs (more so Tories) left better remunerated roles, expenses and all included, to become politicians - and having rubbed shoulders & collected numbers in the halls of power could certainly leave for more money. Yet many linger for administration after administration...

However I’m not so dismissive about the appeals of politics beyond the perceived need to battle for an ideology; high office must feel bloody fantastic, knowing you have authority, that you’re the successor to characters known to history, horse-trading in the corridors of Whitehall, etc, etc.

Peddle Up!

Clegg. Got some on my shoe the other day. Smelled terrible and was very hard to scrape off. Much preferred to the chancer politician of the same name though.

OffTheBackAdam

All political parties should be feeling sad.
The by-election was another resounding win for the "None of the Above" and "Couldn't Give a Fuck" parties.
Labour polled 9,866 votes - less than MacShane's last majority - taking votes from only 15.6 percent of the electorate to win the seat.
In a total of six recent by-elections, we have mandates ranging from 11.6 percent to a maximum of 21.7 percent. Overall, from a total electorate of 461,251 the total votes cast for the six winning candidates were 73,836, representing an average mandate of exactly 16 percent.
As for the LibDems, they've always been, at a national level, the Protest Vote Party. Those who couldn't bear to vote for either of the major parties, voted for them. Now they've found themselves having a real share of what passes for power in this country and having to abandon many of their policies as they can't be funded, their voters have abandonned them in droves. Come 2015, they'll be wiped out, it'll make no difference if they whore themselves to either Conservatives or Labour, they'll be such a minor party, it'll make no difference.

metronome

Squarepants wrote:

They're now known as the conservatories

Win

Frank the tank

Three safe labour seats in mid term, I don't think the results are very suprising. The Lib dumbs took a battering though and that'll be repeated at the GE as some will blame them for propping up a minority Tory government in the form of coalition.

pauldavid

CiB wrote:

dynamicbrick wrote:

...hence they're seeking power for power's sake.
...
I digress. Power for power's sake.

This glib dismissive waft that claims they're only in for its own sake is a bit petty. They're not. A very good reason for wanting power is because Party A believes that its own approach is much better than the other side's approach therefore it's in everyone's interests to hang onto or claim back that power. Party B believes exactly the same but from a different standpoint. Each side earnestly believes that their way is better for the country, for the economy, for our standing in the world. Claiming that the only reason anyone wants to do it is that they just want that power is a bit shallow. It's a belief that the country, the population and the world needs Approach A over Approach B. It's up to us to elect the one that we believe.

Shallow? Yes

True? Yes

They are all worthless tossers whichever colour rosette they wear.

rick_chasey

I'm a member of the lib dems.

I'm even my local youth representative.

A lot of people complain, moan, and shout about how the way the nation is governed, but few put their money where their mouth is and do something about it.

OffTheBackAdam

Being a LibDem member isn't going to do much!

MaxwellBygraves

rick_chasey

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Being a LibDem member isn't going to do much!

Lib dems are involved in the policy decision process.

Labour are not, since, y'know, they're not in government.

finchy

I'm starting to feel a bit sorry for the Lib Dems. Up until the 2008 crash, I felt like I was banging my head against a brick wall when discussing politics with people because try as I might, I just could not convince them that our economy wasn't built on particularly solid foundations, and we were going to regret the massive build-up of private and public debt. People thought I was full of mad, crazy talk, but I remember seeing a few senior LD's talking about the financial markets and the need for tighter regulation.

Now they're in government, they're the ones who are really taking a kicking from the electorate because they have to help clean up the mess that Tory and Labour policy left behind.

desweller

Rick Chasey wrote:

OffTheBackAdam wrote:

Being a LibDem member isn't going to do much!

Lib dems are involved in the policy decision process.

No they're not.

They're legitimising an unelected government, but they have no significant input into policy-making.

What Lib Dem voter would consider the Tories natural partners?

rick_chasey

I'm not happy with it either, but ultimately, the point of a political party is to be in power - else they can actually do any of the things they want to.

This was an opportunity to do at least some of the things they want to do - which is more than they can do in opposition.

To criticise a party for wanting to be in power is a little silly.

For sure, they're not natural bed fellows, and the Lib Dem leadership has been poor at managing the public perception of the coalition, but it's better than being in opposition.

In theory anyway.

desweller

Rick Chasey wrote:

To criticise a party for wanting to be in power is a little silly.

Criticising a party for wanting to be in power so badly that their leadership opted to wholly sacrifice their doctrine on that altar, however, is not silly at all.

rick_chasey

This is where I think Clegg has done badly. The Lib Dems have obviously has some effect on the government. Probably more than the proportion of seats they have.

The Lib Dem message in the coalition has been badly managed. See DesWeller's comment - that they've 'wholly sacrified' their doctrine.

They done more to affect gov't in the past 3 years than they have for 20 years before that.

Unfortunately, it's been managed badly, to a heavy cost both to party membership and at the voting booths.

ddraver

Can't remember if it was the head of the BoE or BoUSA (or whatever) who before the last round of UK/US elections said that whoever wins will never be in power again for 20 years as the things they ll have to do, whoever they are, will be so unpopular that they ll never get forgiven.

Smart man! He did nt see Mitt Romney coming though...

Wonder if Ed M is as unelectable as Mitt Romney. Unfortunately for the Lib Dems, our political system and commentary is so unbelievably fIIcked up, coalition was never going to work.

DesB3rd

^ Yep, Mervin King talking to a less-discrete-than-expected US economist over lunch back in early 2010 - and it was thirty years as quoted....

No fool he regarding 2010's forthcomming economic realities, though his political predictions are probably off. Ruthless, divisive & widely unpopular policies are nothing less than an expectation of Tory governments; doubtless many people cast a Tory vote in 2010 with that knowledge in mind and the thought that after a decade of reliably populist budget plumping any Labour govt would fall off the fiscal wagon as soon as their post-election pollings dipped.

Old Cleggy was buggered either way; he leads a party which relies on being inoffensive, attractive to people to right-on/compassionate (in their own estimation) to vote Tory and equal disinclined to the lefty tribalism of Labour. Once in govt those voters are going to dissapear.