I presume I am receiving what other party members receive: so far that consists of a message telling us to shut up. I have received nothing at all officially from the party seeking my view on a coalition with the Tories.
The Lib Dems make much of being a democratic party.
Anyway, I am spending my time getting to know our new mates.
I hate to say “I told you so”, but the Greens remain the only credible progressive party in this country. Lib Dems let down Scotland in government, and they’re now apparently about to betray the whole country.
That’s right, keep quiet you plebs, the bluebloods are on the case.
Craig – there was an opportunity to email the Federal Executive with your views. See here: http://www.libdemvoice.org/what-should-the-party-do-next-have-your-say-by-2pm-on-saturday-19386.html
This was disseminated throughout the Lib Dem blogosphere, but I don’t think there was an official email rehearsing the information. I would still suggest you send an email, but perhaps if you wanted to give a more open view you would consider contributing something to Lib Dem Voice. I haven’t done that myself but they seem fairly happy to publish party members’ opinions unadulterated, and you are not just a party member…
Tom,
Thanks, I have sent an email. David Grace had also told me about this. But it is a bottom up initiative – of which I entirely approve. There has been nothing asking us from the top. If they can send us an email asking us to shut up, they can send us an email asking what we think.
I quite agree!
OK
It is time.
Can anyone tell me
1) the postal vote figures in all the Scottish constituencies.
2) the corresponding figure in the last General Election or by-election
3) how many, if any, of these postal vote applications were verified, when and by whom.
I would bet my M & S drawers, if I had any, remember I am fur becoated (hell I could be a secret agent from Edinburgh), that they all came in so fast that none were checked, because the local authorities did not have the enough unite(d) manpower to carry it out in the given time.
official Commonwealth election observers, from Africa, have derided our voting security procedures and there enough questions being raised, even by the Electoral Commission, that need to be addressed for the sake of our democracy.
Given that there could well be a postal vote fraud of significance will the responsible authorities now initiate a retrospective check on all postal voters and publish their findings?
I have written Scotland but this equally applies to all other UK constituencies.
This is a festering boil and needs to be lanced
I have run consultation meetings in Birmingham already.
Oh dear dear dear.
Dave couldn’t win an outright majority against the most unpopular prime minister for decades and now Nick is going to help him run the country. Lib Dems better get used to another century in the shadows when the dust settles.
I’m not alone is saying that I will never vote for them again.
I wrote to my defeated Lib Dem candidate as follows:
“I really see no reason that the Liberal Democrats should prop up either of these unpleasant and unpopular parties. Neither could last long without Liberal Democrat support. Give ’em enought rope to hang themselves, eh? After all, propping up Labour in 1974 did you no favours.”
He replied:
“This is a difficult time for our leaders, and I have every confidence that they will make the right recommendations – whatever that may be.
“I personally share your concerns, but am not part of the process as an MP deciding what to do. If the decision is put to the Conference for a decision, I am a delegate to that Conference and will let them know my personal views about a formal or informal coalition with either party!”
I’ve posted this anonymously as I have not asked his permission to publish his reply, and thus do not feel free to identify him.
One of the more glaring security failings of the system is that postal voting slips are mixed in with the rest prior to counting. As a result they cannot be audited separately.
MJ at 11:18
The register can be checked against the addresses given and the votes verified.
If a “significant” fraud is detected, then the constituency count could be challenged.
Do it for all constituencies and watch ZaNuLab cream their breeks.
“One of the more glaring security failings of the system is that postal voting slips are mixed in with the rest prior to counting. As a result they cannot be audited separately.”
That tells you the fraudulent intent behind it. When democracy has become such a charade it’s high time for a revolution!
Apologies, I should have pointed out in my previous post that I was citing MJ’s contribution!
“The register can be checked against the addresses given and the votes verified”.
Yes, but that makes it a prohibitively time-consuming process. Far simpler to keep postal votes apart and count them separately. Possible fraud then becomes immediately apparent.
Which whore should UK Liberal Democrat leader Clegg jump into bed with?
———————————-
By Stuart Littlewood
10 May 2010
Stuart Littlewood argues that, while Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg contemplates whether to ally himself with the Conservative or Labour party, the fact is that “never before in electoral history were the British public presented with such a rubbish choice”, with “no-one ‘clean’ enough, honourable enough and Britain-first enough to take the helm”.
http://www.redress.cc/global/slittlewood20100510
———————————-
“This is a difficult time for our leaders, and I have every confidence that they will make the right recommendations – whatever that may be.
Huh?
whatever recommendation leaves the door open to ANY recommendation, amongst which some will be bad and some just plain wrong, yet whatever horse muck comes out will be the right one? Dear oh dear. This is so contemporary Britain. I am NOT sad this person got defeated.
I have been listening to the latest news bulletins and I smell an impending sell-out by the LibDems, reneging on all the most important reasons people like me vote LibDem in the first place.
Nick Clegg talks about ‘new politics’ all the time, yet what I smell is the same old stinking politics of two dying elephants preserving a system which suits them.
Without some cast iron guarantees in favour of Lib-Dem fundamentals a coalition with the Tories would seem like political suicide.
Going around the blogs I see some in the lib dems have been told to downplay PR.
This from a lib dem site: ‘Maybe, we accept that full PR can’t be achieved.’
Yep, time to be manly, stop sniveling about PR, accept the system as is and beat the b*st*rds at their own game. If you’re pushing for the sort of voting system we have in the Euro-elections where we’re stuck with a regional list and can’t get rid of people at the top of the list, like Duff, forget it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/may/10/proportional-representation-general-election-2010
From medialens
How PR would have changed the general election 2010 result
Posted by alquds43 on May 10, 2010, 1:47 pm
How proportional representation would have changed the general election 2010 result.
Are the coalition talks getting hung up on voting reform? New data shows how the election results would look different under proportional representation.
2010 General Election aftermath
As Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats negotiate with David Cameron’s Conservatives over the ramifications of the hung parliament, the question of proportional representation has come up – especially for the demonstrators from Take Back Parliament.
New figures from the Electoral Reform Society examine exactly how well each party would have done under two systems of PR: Alternative Vote (AV) and Single Transferable Vote (STV).
Interestingly they show that under AV – the system being negotiated and which Gordon Brown and Labour have already pledged a referendum over – the Lib Dems would only increase their seats to 79.
The regional breakdown is below – and we should be able to get constituency-level breakdown later today.
They tell lies all or most of the time. Dirty dogs, now where is the Iraqi who gave it to Murderin Dawg Bush?, Never a shoe thrower when you need one
Sky have just said that RBS (ie the state High St bank under the bailout) have announced 2,600 job losses.
More of the same to follow?
PS 600 in their retail side The rest as a result of compulsory EU orders to sell off their insurance side – Direct Line, Churchill etc.
16,500 jobs lost from RBS since the banking collapse. Fred the Shred is immune from the hardship suffered by his ex-colleagues as he is now safely tucked up with RMJM.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1243599/Fred-Shred-joins-overspending-architectural-firm–consultant.html
.
looks like they’re offering AV+
If PR isn’t achieved what will be? I know PR is a major step, but surely it is one KEY step. The LD’s to their shame WON’T ask/demand for the end of the war. The Con/NeoLAB won’t want to smash up the banks (It’ll cost their Ziobuddies too much to ‘regain’ control over them again).
Maybe Clegg could get away with the renaming of a small town after him, but even that’s not a definite.
Even NeoLabour only promised a referenum on PR i.e. No PR this (and subsequent parliaments)
Clegg is walking a tight line. The 1000’s people who in great politician style Clegg managed to pacify without promising anything will suffer badly if he doesn’t get PR.
I’ll end by saying how DAMN sick I am of not getting any news about what’s happeing. Where have all the spin doctors and crap slithered to?
Clegg SHOULD force a minorty govt, siding with the tories.
I’m still speaking face value politics here.
I was speakkng bollocks too.
Clegg SHOULD force a minorty govt, by NOT siding with the tories.
Clegg and the LibDems are between the devil and a hard place. As the Tories got the largest number of votes, it would have seemed anti-democratic not to approach them first. But supposing a GENUINE committment to a referendum on PR, (or STV etc), could actually be wrung from the Conservatives, (no mean feat in itself, but I can’t see them getting anything more than that at best). Entering a coalition which will facilitate the Tory’s savage public service cuts, is only going to reflect badly on an electoral system likely to result in more coalitions. Regardless of the lack of any logical connection between the two, they will be associated in the public’s mind. The Libdem’s would inevitably suffer from being associated with the nasty party’s agenda too, whereas any amelioration of Tory cuts and taxes that they might achieve, is only likely to make the Conservatives seem more palatable to the public, particularly with the Murdoch media spinning for all it’s worth. So, like the Public Private Partnerships, where the profit is privatised and the losses are public, the Tories will seek the credit for any economic upturn that comes, while the LibDems will be blamed for it having taken so long to arrive. Meawhile, New “Labour” can claim that they wouldn’t have had to cut such and such service, or raise that particular tax, even though they might have been forced to do exactly the same had they been in power.
Yet the alternative ‘LibDem-NuLab-plus-others’ coalition would be more unstable, being dependent on more than just two, (albeit ideologically more ill-matched parties), and so probably more open to market perceptions of weakness and hence more susceptible to speculative attack. Brown’s fingers would have to be prised from the helm as a sine qua non, of course. He has no legitimacy left, except perhaps in his own head still. There are many in New “Labour”, however, just as stubbornly opposed to electoral reform as the Tories, knowing that it could see their chances of a return to power dwindling even further into the future. In a LibDem-NuLab-Nationalist parties coalition, what hope is there that the West Lothian question would finally be addressed in any electoral reform? Labour has long relied on its Scottish MPs, and has used them cynically to force through policies affecting only the English, then voting against the same in their own assembly. So only the English have to pay for the care of OAPs, tuition fees and prescription charges. It’s likely there would be many more examples under such a coalition, with the Nationalist parties demanding less of the burden of cuts be imposed on their own constituencies as the price of cooperation. The English would have no such voices raised on their behalf.
I would still prefer some form of PR/STV, but even if the LibDems can achieve a referendum on the issue, (which they are very far from certain of winning), what price can they afford to pay for such a gamble? Either possible coalition could result in a lose-lose situation. There is a third choice, of course, (just as there was at the election), which is neither of the main parties – to remain independent, but powerless. Where does that leave us and them? With a minority Tory government that is soon going to fall, or dissolve itself when it thinks it has the best chance of getting a majority. After a few months of roller-coaster stock market graphs they should have suceeded in frightening the electorate into avoiding any more of that dreaded bogeyman of the markets, “UNCERTAINTY”. So what could be worse than a Tory-LibDem or LibDem-NuLab-rainbow-Nationalist coalition? A Tory majority government for at least another five long, lean years.
Looks like no lib/con or lib/lab coalition but an understanding with the tories so that the tories can govern. The lib dems think that will get them off the hook.
No PR, forget it.