Topic: Would you vote Lib Dem to Stop Brexit (If it would, obviously...)

[Priest078]

I hate Lib Dems just as much as tories so no. Plus I want a hard Brexit so no.

If you knew the total lies Lib Dems make on a local level then you'd never entertain the thought of voting for them.

Why do you want a hard Brexit?

[oldfordie]

firstly there's a possibility of an early election, but if there is an election post brexit and it's a hard brexit and the country goes to shit then UKIP will be redundant, people will be massively fucked off with the Tories for it happening and labour for just waving it through whereas the lib dems will be seen as the ones against the most damaging thing in this generation and will get positive traction and could get a shock win, I mean a month ago trump became president of the USA ffs so these kinds of upsets aren't unfeasible at all

Spot on.Anyone thinking the Torys will be the only party feeling a backlash have got it badly wrong.
Why are Labour giving the Torys their blessing to trigger article 50 in March now when they have no idea what it means or how this will affect the millions of Labour voters out their.
It was terrible watching all those Tory MPs frothing at the mouth this afternoon. all excited at the prospect of having all the EU regulations stopping them abusing their workers ripped up.

[bigbonedrawky]

labour were massively unpopular at that point and it would have ruined both parties had there been a labour/lib dem coalition

If Labour and the Lib Dems were as "massively unpopular" as you claim then they wouldn't of had enough seats to form a majority in the first place. 
Facts are Lib Dems joined the Tories and the Lib Dem then became "massively unpopular" and considering your own personal view of Labour and the electorates view of the Lib Dems at the last election... Then you must feel that you are actually right but for the wrong reasons.   
       

[west_london_red]

firstly there's a possibility of an early election, but if there is an election post brexit and it's a hard brexit and the country goes to shit then UKIP will be redundant, people will be massively fucked off with the Tories for it happening and labour for just waving it through whereas the lib dems will be seen as the ones against the most damaging thing in this generation and will get positive traction and could get a shock win, I mean a month ago trump became president of the USA ffs so these kinds of upsets aren't unfeasible at all

You realise that if UKIP were redundant most of that vote will go to the Tories firstly, which massively strengthens their numbers and they certainly ain't Lib Dem voters, and secondly Labour are not waving through Brexit as you put it but doing what they can to prevent a Hard Brexit, rather then the Lib Dems who are just burying their heads in the sand and in denial about what's just happened.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

If Labour and the Lib Dems were as "massively unpopular" as you claim then they wouldn't of had enough seats to form a majority in the first place. 
Facts are Lib Dems joined the Tories and the Lib Dem then became "massively unpopular" and considering your own personal view of Labour and the electorates view of the Lib Dems at the last election... Then you must feel that you are actually right but for the wrong reasons.         

the labour government were very unpopular at that time, that's why they lost! Changing PMs between elections for one thing does that to your rep

You realise that if UKIP were redundant most of that vote will go to the Tories firstly, which massively strengthens their numbers and they certainly ain't Lib Dem voters, and secondly Labour are not waving through Brexit as you put it but doing what they can to prevent a Hard Brexit, rather then the Lib Dems who are just burying their heads in the sand and in denial about what's just happened.

a decent chunk would definitely go to the Tories, but those who voted UKIP as a protest last time won't necessarily do so, ditto those who changed their mind on the issue which will probably be quite a large number of UKIP voters (don't think they have more than 50k members so their 'core' is much smaller than many give credit for).

Labour are providing bugger all resistance to it, lib dems are at least challenging them on it and trying to get a referendum on the terms of the deal, something which labour don't want to do

[west_london_red]

a decent chunk would definitely go to the Tories, but those who voted UKIP as a protest last time won't necessarily do so, ditto those who changed their mind on the issue which will probably be quite a large number of UKIP voters (don't think they have more than 50k members so their 'core' is much smaller than many give credit for).

Labour are providing bugger all resistance to it, lib dems are at least challenging them on it and trying to get a referendum on the terms of the deal, something which labour don't want to do

If you actually think that voters will go from UKIP to Lib Dem then I can't really take this post seriously.

[Elmo!]

If you actually think that voters will go from UKIP to Lib Dem then I can't really take this post seriously.

I don't see where he's said that. You said a lot of UKIP votes would go back to the Tories, Laughter said not as many as you think would go to the Tories.

[west_london_red]

I don't see where he's said that. You said a lot of UKIP votes would go back to the Tories, Laughter said not as many as you think would go to the Tories.

Well if they didn't go back to the Tories where would most of them go? Nor are we talking about small numbers here considering they got 4 million votes at the last election.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

If you actually think that voters will go from UKIP to Lib Dem then I can't really take this post seriously.

for a start they gained 3m last time and the lib dems lost 4.5m so there would have been a good few from the lib dem pot to the UKIP one, for various reasons (protest vote, change mind on EU and want out) so is feasible that some of them go back to lib dem, doubt it would be in the millions though but could affect a few seats post brexit and assuming UKIP dissolve

[Elmo!]

Well if they didn't go back to the Tories where would most of them go? Nor are we talking about small numbers here considering they got 4 million votes at the last election.

Labour? Look at how many seats UKIP came second in in Labour heartlands in the north. Or as Laughter said, not vote at all.

[killer-heels]

Well if they didn't go back to the Tories where would most of them go? Nor are we talking about small numbers here considering they got 4 million votes at the last election.

In Sleaford many seemed to go from Lib Dems to UKIP. There is clearly a possibility that there is plenty who just want an alternative to the Tories and Labour so a surprise in votes cannot be discounted by any party.

[Elmo!]

for a start they gained 3m last time and the lib dems lost 4.5m so there would have been a good few from the lib dem pot to the UKIP one, for various reasons (protest vote, change mind on EU and want out) so is feasible that some of them go back to lib dem, doubt it would be in the millions though but could affect a few seats post brexit and assuming UKIP dissolve

I suspect the movement in 2015 was more Lib Dem > Tory/Labour, and Labour/Tory > UKIP rather than Lib Dem > UKIP.

[TepidT2O]

It's so weird.. Lib dem to UKIP.  How does that ever happen???

[killer-heels]

It's so weird.. Lib dem to UKIP.  How does that ever happen???

No idea but probably just wanting an alternative. I dont think the electorate is as partisan here as say the States.

[west_london_red]

for a start they gained 3m last time and the lib dems lost 4.5m so there would have been a good few from the lib dem pot to the UKIP one, for various reasons (protest vote, change mind on EU and want out) so is feasible that some of them go back to lib dem, doubt it would be in the millions though but could affect a few seats post brexit and assuming UKIP dissolve

I find it very unlikely myself as UKIP and the Lib Dems appeal to very different demographics if not total opposites in many cases but happy to be proven wrong as the thought of the Tories gaining 2-3 million additional votes is frankly frightening.

[west_london_red]

I suspect the movement in 2015 was more Lib Dem > Tory/Labour, and Labour/Tory > UKIP rather than Lib Dem > UKIP.

That would be my thinking.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

It's so weird.. Lib dem to UKIP.  How does that ever happen???

you are a lib dem voter pissed off with them and want to protest so vote for someone diametrically opposed to them (and they have no chance of winning)

[Elmo!]

It's so weird.. Lib dem to UKIP.  How does that ever happen???

Bit like Sanders supporters voting for Trump?

[Redman0151]

so this pisses you off massively but you'd vote labour when they are led by a man who couldn't be bothered to campaign with any real effort on a far, far bigger issue and went on holiday during an important week of campaigning??

Get over it mate, yes that sucked but this is far, far more important than fucking tuition fees, for a start your job prospects would likely be massively harmed by brexit for one.

Again, the only defence of the Lib Dems is attacking labour, it shows what a shite party they are when that's all that can be said of them

[Redman0151]

The students who were indebted were far better able to sustain the burden than the other people screwed by austerity. A student loan is more akin to a higher tax rate on earning above a certain level than a normal debt. When critical services are being cut beyond breaking, making students contribute to the cost of their education if they exceed an earning threshold is probably the least worst option. It is certainly not a priority when services are having the life squeezed out of them.  The Lib Dems made a huge PR gaff. They wasted their political capital on an AV vote no one wanted. They failed to explain why student loans were not prioritised. And they got hammered by the right leaning press that saw an opportunity to make the Lib Dems scapegoats for the coalition. The Lib Dems sacrificed their own narrow interests to join the coalition in the national interest and they got crucified for it. After 18 months of sole Tory rule, it should be apparent just how restrained the Tories were by the Lib Dems.,

The long term effects are much worse than just debt that will be written off, the year after they were introduced university applications from British students reduced by 8.9%. A less educated public is not a good thing, it's something Tony Blair saw early, the benefits of getting as many people as good an education as is possible.

The only people that benefit from an uneducated country is Torys and other parts of the reactionary right, because people with degrees are far more likely to vote Greens or Labour

[Jake]

Vote green,  we're also all for remain.

[killer-heels]

The long term effects are much worse than just debt that will be written off, the year after they were introduced university applications from British students reduced by 8.9%. A less educated public is not a good thing, it's something Tony Blair saw early, the benefits of getting as many people as good an education as is possible.

The only people that benefit from an uneducated country is Torys and other parts of the reactionary right, because people with degrees are far more likely to vote Greens or Labour

You did say you would vote Lib Dems if they were a strong chance to win?

[Redman0151]

You did say you would vote Lib Dems if they were a strong chance to win?

Of course, i'd vote anybody (except UKIP) if it meant the Torys didn't win, but i'm in a safe Labour seat so it's just a hypothetical.

The Lib Dems got 4% of the vote in my constituency last time around

[killer-heels]

Of course, i'd vote anybody (except UKIP) if it meant the Torys didn't win, but i'm in a safe Labour seat so it's just a hypothetical.

The Lib Dems got 4% of the vote in my constituency last time around

Yep I think that was what I was questioning. If a vote for Lib Dems means guaranteed stopping of Brexit surely means a chance of getting into power which everyone should vote for.

[SP]

The long term effects are much worse than just debt that will be written off, the year after they were introduced university applications from British students reduced by 8.9%. A less educated public is not a good thing, it's something Tony Blair saw early, the benefits of getting as many people as good an education as is possible.

The only people that benefit from an uneducated country is Torys and other parts of the reactionary right, because people with degrees are far more likely to vote Greens or Labour

Just increasing numbers of people going to university has been the fig leaf covering the general shiteness of post secondary education / training. There is a reasonable case that there are many people going to university, where it is not the most appropriate thing for them to do after school. The dearth of decent apprenticeships and the non-existent quality vocation training is scandalous. The number of people going to university is probably higher than it naturally should - some degrees are fairly worthless vocationally. But for the undergrads, there are scandalously few alternatives. Blair was obsessed with metrics and league tables. Just increasing the numbers does not meet the many and varied needs of school leavers.

Given everything else that was cut during that parliament, student fees probably did the least harm. The likely alternative ways of clawing back that amount of money would fall upon far more vulnerable members of society.

[Redman0151]

Just increasing numbers of people going to university has been the fig leaf covering the general shiteness of post secondary education / training. There is a reasonable case that there are many people going to university, where it is not the most appropriate thing for them to do after school. The dearth of decent apprenticeships and the non-existent quality vocation training is scandalous. The number of people going to university is probably higher than it naturally should - some degrees are fairly worthless vocationally. But for the undergrads, there are scandalously few alternatives. Blair was obsessed with metrics and league tables. Just increasing the numbers does not meet the many and varied needs of school leavers.

Given everything else that was cut during that parliament, student fees probably did the least harm. The likely alternative ways of clawing back that amount of money would fall upon far more vulnerable members of society.

IFS already pointed out that they aren't sure tuition fees will net the government much more money, if any more at all.

Maybe a better solution would be to go after the gobshite billionaires and companies that are dodging billions in tax.

We shouldn't fall for the false dichotomy of "the students or the poor must suffer". Austerity didn't work, and the only solution being put forward seems to be attack the most vulnerable even more.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Just increasing numbers of people going to university has been the fig leaf covering the general shiteness of post secondary education / training. There is a reasonable case that there are many people going to university, where it is not the most appropriate thing for them to do after school. The dearth of decent apprenticeships and the non-existent quality vocation training is scandalous. The number of people going to university is probably higher than it naturally should - some degrees are fairly worthless vocationally. But for the undergrads, there are scandalously few alternatives.

admittedly i finished postgrad 8 years ago and undergrad 10 years ago but I did think there were far too many people who really shouldnt be there - quite a few thought itd be a massive pissup and acted like utter divs in lectures, and quite a few mates who were planning to go into the family business after graduating but just about all of them quit after first year to work in the business (when they should have just gone into it on day fucking one). and of course there were quite a few courses that were oversubscribed and they cut some after year one so they could get more money by things like crap grades or in the case of medicine get rid of people who had minor cautions for little things like possession of weed when they were 14. personally think the growth of the polys to universities had a negative effect, i know it was to get more people degrees but JMU were letting people in on fairly decent courses with A levels like D,E,E which was just wrong - increase the barriers to get in (in terms of grades, anything less than 3 C's shouldnt get you in IMO), if you miss it then perhaps get them to do a foundation year with a relatively high-ish bar to get into the degree, and the cost of a course should depend on need to society and also whether they complete it (obviously there are legitimate reasons to drop a degree, but thinking of people who quit after year 1 and take away a place from someone else).

and there is my experience in work of some people who got brilliant degress from places like cambridge who are fucking useless when things go marginally out of their comfort zone, in my last job hired a lad who quit uni after a year, got a bit of decent experience and he was far better than a new grad who decided to go to the pub during a fire drill and tended to phone in 'sick' on fridays at 1pm...

but the apprenticeship point is very valid, they were totally bastardized when i was younger (one lad in school said to a teacher he was thinking of doing one and the teacher had a go at him for low standards), as you said it was all about league tables when it should be more about what they can do in the workplace than the classroom, as the former is very relevant, the latter nowhere near as much. one mate from 6th form didnt bother with uni and joined a local accountancy firm to get trained, asked him why and he simply said 'i get paid for 3 years, get partially CCAB qualified, no student debts and 3 years experience, if i go to uni i have none of those', and he was dead right

[SP]

IFS already pointed out that they aren't sure tuition fees will net the government much more money, if any more at all.

Maybe a better solution would be to go after the gobshite billionaires and companies that are dodging billions in tax.

We shouldn't fall for the false dichotomy of "the students or the poor must suffer". Austerity didn't work, and the only solution being put forward seems to be attack the most vulnerable even more.

The reduction in the HEFCE grant will cost about £2,500 per graduate, or £760m per year. And if you want to be perverse, the spending of that money has been skewed towards those least able to pay in comparison to the old system. 

There is no magic bullet of ultra rich people who can be magically taxed to balance the books. The seriously rich who dodge taxes pay for far better advice than the people writing and enforcing the tax laws can afford. Man of the gestures are political rather than financially driven. Reducing tax evasion is like efficiency savings in the Civil Service - the projected savings never materialise. The bulk of the taxation will fall on middle earners. There are so many more of them, and PAYE makes it trivial to tax them. 

[Andy @ Allerton!]

admittedly i finished postgrad 8 years ago and undergrad 10 years ago but I did think there were far too many people who really shouldnt be there - quite a few thought itd be a massive pissup and acted like utter divs in lectures, and quite a few mates who were planning to go into the family business after graduating but just about all of them quit after first year to work in the business (when they should have just gone into it on day fucking one). and of course there were quite a few courses that were oversubscribed and they cut some after year one so they could get more money by things like crap grades or in the case of medicine get rid of people who had minor cautions for little things like possession of weed when they were 14. personally think the growth of the polys to universities had a negative effect, i know it was to get more people degrees but JMU were letting people in on fairly decent courses with A levels like D,E,E which was just wrong - increase the barriers to get in (in terms of grades, anything less than 3 C's shouldnt get you in IMO), if you miss it then perhaps get them to do a foundation year with a relatively high-ish bar to get into the degree, and the cost of a course should depend on need to society and also whether they complete it (obviously there are legitimate reasons to drop a degree, but thinking of people who quit after year 1 and take away a place from someone else).

and there is my experience in work of some people who got brilliant degress from places like cambridge who are fucking useless when things go marginally out of their comfort zone, in my last job hired a lad who quit uni after a year, got a bit of decent experience and he was far better than a new grad who decided to go to the pub during a fire drill and tended to phone in 'sick' on fridays at 1pm...

but the apprenticeship point is very valid, they were totally bastardized when i was younger (one lad in school said to a teacher he was thinking of doing one and the teacher had a go at him for low standards), as you said it was all about league tables when it should be more about what they can do in the workplace than the classroom, as the former is very relevant, the latter nowhere near as much. one mate from 6th form didnt bother with uni and joined a local accountancy firm to get trained, asked him why and he simply said 'i get paid for 3 years, get partially CCAB qualified, no student debts and 3 years experience, if i go to uni i have none of those', and he was dead right

I've worked with people with absolutely top class degrees that are utterly hopeless. Academically they are brilliant but in their case it didn't translate into actual work and production

[Libertine]

*tries not to get too excited about one poll* 

@britainelects 4h4 hours ago

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 40% (-2)
LAB: 29% (-4)
LDEM: 14% (+4)
UKIP: 9% (+2)
GRN: 3% (-1)
(via Ipsos Mori / 09 - 12 Dec)


Lib Dems at highest position for 2 years....

[Red-Soldier]

I've worked with people with absolutely top class degrees that are utterly hopeless. Academically they are brilliant but in their case it didn't translate into actual work and production

I've had that experience too.

[Red-Soldier]

*tries not to get too excited about one poll* 

@britainelects 4h4 hours ago

Westminster voting intention:
CON: 40% (-2)
LAB: 29% (-4)
LDEM: 14% (+4)
UKIP: 9% (+2)
GRN: 3% (-1)
(via Ipsos Mori / 09 - 12 Dec)


Lib Dems at highest position for 2 years....

That's great news, trying not to get too excited about it 

[Kashinoda]

A more interesting poll would have been, would you vote Tory if it would guarantee us staying in the EU.

[Historical Fool]

Not sure of your point? In order to screw over your political opponents then it's understandable to throw away your economic policy and sign up to something you know is going to be absolutely destructive to many of your constituents?

To be fair that model is recently in vogue, Trump being a clear example.

[west_london_red]

A more interesting poll would have been, would you vote Tory if it would guarantee us staying in the EU.

I did ask the same question earlier, but wouldn't want to hazard a guess as I suspect I'd get in trouble.

[oldfordie]

A more interesting poll would have been, would you vote Tory if it would guarantee us staying in the EU.

If this was a hypothetical question then yes, it would be interesting but I think we all know this is not a hypothetical question. the only party opposing Brexit right now is the Lib Dems. 5 out 6 Labour voters who took part in the poll intend to vote Lib Dems for this reason, Labour need to wake up to that fact.

[Libertine]

7 council by-elections last night across the country - 3 more Lib Dem gains from Tories on swings of 12%, 21% and 40% (FORTY PERCENT!)....

All in "leave" areas in the south-west too.

[Red-Soldier]

7 council by-elections last night across the country - 3 more Lib Dem gains from Tories on swings of 12%, 21% and 40% (FORTY PERCENT!)....

All in "leave" areas in the south-west too.

Great stuff 

[SP]

7 council by-elections last night across the country - 3 more Lib Dem gains from Tories on swings of 12%, 21% and 40% (FORTY PERCENT!)....

All in "leave" areas in the south-west too.

But whilst the trend may resonate with the views of some posters, you really should not read too much into the swings in local elections. A 40% swing may well indicate local issues. Given the numbers in council elections, a locally popular or unpopular candidate can cause huge swings.

[Libertine]

But whilst the trend may resonate with the views of some posters, you really should not read too much into the swings in local elections. A 40% swing may well indicate local issues. Given the numbers in council elections, a locally popular or unpopular candidate can cause huge swings.

True. But this has been a consistent pattern since June. Think it's about 30 LD gains now, often with massive swings, mostly against Tories but some against other parties too.

Can't read too much into it, but given the performances in the Westminster by-elections and the recent poll, the signs do look promising.