The Election Results

[threegee]

Once again illustrate:

That Tory voters understand basic economics, and that it is often necessary to take a present hits for the sake of a better future. Though they baulk at the really big issues that would change society for the better.

LD voters are a flighty lot that can (and do) change their minds on a sixpence. They fall for abstract nonsense like claims to "fairness for all". The curios thing is that at the local level the LDs are often really quite good at management of available resources, and are being punished by their fickle electors for no good reason.

..and Labour voters don't make any attempt to understand economics, and have very selective oh so short memories. A fact which keeps Labour in business and impoverishes their electors!

On the referendum:

Likely to show that the great majority of the electorate (regardless of party affiliation) have a deep and healthy suspicion of political engineering and jiggery-pokery by politicians. They understand that any change politicians make to the system won't benefit them in the slightest. The older ones remember the lies told by Ted Heath (which he admitted to in 1998) to get us into the EU at any cost. The wiser ones resent the fact that the government of the day sets the question, the timing, and the fact that there's to be one at all. Also that referendums are a one-way trapdoor that there's never any going back from, even when it becomes very clear to the majority that it was a wrong decision and they've been duped!

[Malcolm Robinson]

Don't know how much of that I would agree with GGG!

These are local council elections and even perming in Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly I don't think we can extrapolate what voters would do in a general election or how they would behave. Its horses for courses. By and large these elections were about installing local people to run local services, or how they propose to cut them!

What does seem obvious to me is that the Lib Dems have taken a thumping, in an area where they usually are strong, and especially their leader the closet Tory, Nicholas William Peter Clegg, who I will bet anyone a daft penny won't lead them into the next general election, or is deposed ASAP after a humiliating defeat!

I think your post does illustrate what is wrong in local government, if not national government but let's start small first, and that's the political party structure and its manic interference. We really need to start electing people because they have at least some semblance of competence not because they belong to one political party or another.

We are suffering death by a thousand cuts at the moment and that will get worse next year. Doing this while stagnating can only lead to an ever decreasing circle of unemployment, stag/inflation, indebtedness and general misery. What we need is change, investment in the right things and some innovative polices. What we have is people so far out of their pay league its untrue, most of our glorious leaders need help crossing the street safely! What they still don't need help with is filling out expenses forms though!

The huge swing in the predicted result of the referendum going from a 'Yes' win to a conclusive 'NO' win would seem to say that a lot of people want reformation of our electoral system but when they looked at what was on offer quite rightly turned their noses up at it. The question should have been a simple..... 'Do we need to reform our electoral system', yes or no, then if we returned a 'yes' majority we could have taken a bit of time and trouble and looked at all the possible permutations and got one right for the UK in the 21st century.

[Merlin]

Here's my take on what the people of this country are really thinking,

What a load of B.ollicks

[Stephen]

The Lib Dems would always have lost some votes by going into any coalition, depending on whether the voters preferred them to work with Labour or the Conservatives. The cuts and tax rises necessary to reduce the deficit were never going to be vote winners either. But it's the image the party now has of broken promises that has been most damaging. The increase of tuition fees was a complete reversal of promises before the election. Looking at individual council wards in Newcastle, the ones with big student populations changed from Lib Dem to Labour. I expect this will have been repeated in Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Sheffield and other university cities.

The results in Scotland show that there are a lot of people who want to vote for someone other than Labour or the Conservatives though, this has come as a nasty surprise to Labour who expected all the disaffected Lib Dems to go their way. Perhaps this election has been a big missed opportunity for UKIP in England?

Malcolm, I'm a supporter of electoral reform but I can't see anything in those results that suggest that people want reform of some kind just not AV. It was a crushing defeat in almost every constituency and council area, and on a higher turnout than expected.

There are no easy answers, it is still a dangerous time for a country to be in debt as Iceland, Latvia, Greece, Ireland and Portugal can all testify (and even the USA is now being threatened with a downgrade of their credit rating). Ed Balls' way of borrowing and spending more and more money assuming that it will lead to growth is the policy that helped get us into this mess in the first place. You're right that we need new ideas for targeted investment in growth based on something real, not a government pyramid scheme.

[Malcolm Robinson]

The results in Scotland show that there are a lot of people who want to vote for someone other than Labour or the Conservatives though, this has come as a nasty surprise to Labour who expected all the disaffected Lib Dems to go their way. Perhaps this election has been a big missed opportunity for UKIP in England?

Malcolm, I'm a supporter of electoral reform but I can't see anything in those results that suggest that people want reform of some kind just not AV. It was a crushing defeat in almost every constituency and council area, and on a higher turnout than expected.

Stephen,

That's why I highlighted the opinion polls throughout. At one point the 'Yes' campaign was in the lead only to see that lead reverse after a week or two. That would seem to show voters did want reform but once they examined what was on offer, AV, they didn't want that and so changed their minds because it was that or nothing.

Once again I think Clegg has shot himself in the foot, and your party by association, he should have just asked the simple question and then held the national debate about what shape that would take if he won. I think he was outmanoeuvred by the Cameroons. Turned out to be like asking the condemned man if he wants to be hung or shot!

Also can you explain what possible relevance the political make up, administration, of a local council has nationally?

[John Fox (foxy)]

The Lib Dems would always have lost some votes by going into any coalition, depending on whether the voters preferred them to work with Labour or the Conservatives. The cuts and tax rises necessary to reduce the deficit were never going to be vote winners either. But it's the image the party now has of broken promises that has been most damaging. The increase of tuition fees was a complete reversal of promises before the election. Looking at individual council wards in Newcastle, the ones with big student populations changed from Lib Dem to Labour. I expect this will have been repeated in Manchester, Liverpool, Nottingham, Sheffield and other university cities.

The results in Scotland show that there are a lot of people who want to vote for someone other than Labour or the Conservatives though, this has come as a nasty surprise to Labour who expected all the disaffected Lib Dems to go their way. Perhaps this election has been a big missed opportunity for UKIP in England?

Malcolm, I'm a supporter of electoral reform but I can't see anything in those results that suggest that people want reform of some kind just not AV. It was a crushing defeat in almost every constituency and council area, and on a higher turnout than expected.

There are no easy answers, it is still a dangerous time for a country to be in debt as Iceland, Latvia, Greece, Ireland and Portugal can all testify (and even the USA is now being threatened with a downgrade of their credit rating). Ed Balls' way of borrowing and spending more and more money assuming that it will lead to growth is the policy that helped get us into this mess in the first place. You're right that we need new ideas for targeted investment in growth based on something real, not a government pyramid scheme.

Stephen,thanks for the explanation on why so many votes have been lost but surely it is a bit long winded and could have been edited down to fewer words: LYING, TWO, FACED, SPINELESS.

[threegee]

The Lib Dems would always have lost some votes by going into any coalition, depending on whether the voters preferred them to work with Labour or the Conservatives

On the contrary, I think the coalition was well received by most as an end to squabbling and a focus on doing the right thing. However the LDs raised unrealistic expectations amongst the politically unsavvy - mainly the young - and it's those that have been dashed. It was all about the Clegg factor, and the impressionable weren't listening to what Vince Cable was actually saying about the depth of the problems. This though suited the LDs at that particular moment.

The results in Scotland show that there are a lot of people who want to vote for someone other than Labour or the Conservatives though,...

Scotland, quite naturally, wants it both ways. They want the best of any deals, but will baulk at the independence that will stop the gravy train. The whole devolution thing was another ill-conceived bit of Labour's social engineering. Now Salmond has put himself in a corner on independence he's going to put off a referendum as long as he possibly can.

There are no easy answers, it is still a dangerous time for a country to be in debt as Iceland, Latvia, Greece, Ireland and Portugal can all testify (and even the USA is now being threatened with a downgrade of their credit rating). Ed Balls' way of borrowing and spending more and more money assuming that it will lead to growth is the policy that helped get us into this mess in the first place.

And both the Tories and the LDs are letting Red Ed get away with the "too fast too deep" crap! They need to present a united front in telling the electorate the truth, and point out that if Labour were in power they would be forced into doing exactly the same. In fact with Labour's intrinsic mismanagement the cuts would ultimately have to go deeper, and we'd be in the sh** for far longer!

...

That's why I highlighted the opinion polls throughout. At one point the 'Yes' campaign was in the lead only to see that lead reverse after a week or two. That would seem to show voters did want reform but once they examined what was on offer, AV, they didn't want that and so changed their minds because it was that or nothing.

I don't think that the Yes was ever in the lead; it was just that the people who voted No took the trouble to weigh the arguments. The fundamental failing of the Yes campaign was that that they didn't actually state what the problem they were attempting to fix was! They threw lots of things into the hat, but in the end the bulk of the electorate saw that none of them was convincing, and that the true reason they wanted AV was the simple advantage that it offered them. Yes, Cameron knew what the outcome was going to be when he agreed to the referendum, but Vince Cable's invective about Tory deviousness is just plain silly. Sour grapes at getting it wrong in believing the electorate could be sold on something that didn't offer them anything!

Once again I think Clegg has shot himself in the foot, and your party by association, he should have just asked the simple question and then held the national debate about what shape that would take if he won. I think he was outmanoeuvred by the Cameroons. Turned out to be like asking the condemned man if he wants to be hung or shot!

...and it's put back the issue of real political reform maybe 20 years!

Also can you explain what possible relevance the political make up, administration, of a local council has nationally?

Now that would be interesting! I'd go further and say that it's irrelevant to the Commons too. We have this problem that our MPs pretend to be representing their constituents, but are "whipped" into taking the party line. There was a time when a speech in the Commons could change policy. These days any honest MP will tell you that they are for the most part wasting their breath. Policy is decided elsewhere, long before any Commons debate. The squabbles in the Commons are a meaningless distraction for real government, and a huge put-off for the electorate.

The sensible reform is to have the public elect a Cabinet and a government on party lines, and elect their MPs on non-party lines. The MPs could state their beliefs and that they broadly supported the ideas of this party or that, but there would be no "whipping". Electors would vote for both a Party Government, and a locally-representing MP, but they wouldn't necessarily be of the same party allegiance. The Lords could be cut to about a tenth it's present size as a revising chamber, and there would be no right of the PM to appoint them, or be abolished completely. Political patronage would end, and we'd have a much healthier democracy as a result

This would have the further advantage of removing the "no overall majority" problem, and would paradoxically probably advantage the LDs by a huge margin in the Commons - people would fell free to vote for a government of their persuasion, but a person they knew well (and with teeth!) to represent them at a national level. Many MPs would undoubtedly adopt a "mix and match" selection from different party manifestos. This would also give single-issue parties true representation too.

[Merlin]

As my previous post

B,OLLICKS :dribble:

[Stephen]

Also can you explain what possible relevance the political make up, administration, of a local council has nationally?

You've been spared a more long winded reply by my browser crashing near the end of it!

Very little, national parties only dominate local politics because they are increasingly the only ones who put up candidates, and not enough people vote for those independents who do stand. None of the local branches of the three main parties get huge donations from millionaires, we raise money between ourselves and band together to help each other get leaflets out. There is nothing stopping independents doing the same e.g. Fresh in Wansbeck or the longer lived South Tyneside Progressives.