Liberal Dems spank Labour

[richlevy]

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/0...v-debates.html

So it appears that the Liberal Democrats have found their Clinton/Reagan/Obama. All reports are that he won the debate.

However, the one advantage of a parliamentary government is that you can try something and take it back a few months later.

Clegg's popularity surged in the wake of Thursday's debate, according to the Sun's survey, with nearly twice as many voters saying he would make the best prime minister after than before the debate.
The Liberal Democrats had been polling around 20 per cent before the TV encounter, but viewers rated 43-year-old Clegg the most honest, charismatic and relaxed leader, and near-majorities of respondents in several surveys said he'd won the contest.

So, is he just a good speaker? In the US, John Edwards was a great speaker, but it turns out did not have the character for the job. Can Clegg deliver?

[DanaC]

As an individual he's quite impressive. He put in a very good performance on the debate. But ... light on detail. He was the most personable and accessible of the three.

In our system, the best he and his party can hope for is a 'Hung Parliament'; but whilst that gets predicted every so often, it very rarely actually happens. Lots of people who support the Lib Dems will end up voting for another partty as a 'tactical vote'. They're the third party in a two party race :P

[CzinZumerzet]

Sadly true. In my town we have a tory MP who is ok-ish at best, but the Labour Party candidate is a young man fresh out of college who is standing in order to give him the experience of standing. He hasn't a cat's chance of being elected as this is a safe tory seat and always has been.

However, there is noise abroad of people voting tactically for the LibDem candidate on the basis that a/ he is a local young man who is well know and liked for both his politics and his personal qualities and b/ Nick Clegg's handling of the TV debate last week was refreshingly free of Westminster spin and machination. Our young Mike Bell (watch out for that name) has a good chance of taking the tory vote and safe seat, and as a lifelong Socialist and Labout Party member, I have to decide if I can vote for him. It isn't as straightforward as I first thought.

[DanaC]

If the battle in Halifax was between Tory and Lib dem, I'd vote Lib dem.

I am Labour (if a little disillusioned) and, like Caz, a lifelong socialist. As a socialist the Tories appall and frighten me in roughly equal measure.

[Sundae]

I'm a socialist, and campaigning as hard as I can to get our LibDem candidate in. Aylesbury has always been true blue (I can only assume because the poorer parts of town are disenfranchised) but I think we have a chance this time.

The sitting Tory candidate wasn't one of the worst offenders when it came to the expenses scandal, but he didn't emerge covered in glory either. I think we all sniggered that he charged a Twix to expenses... A 40p chocolate bar for a man on £60k?! I used to buy milk for my colleague at the PCT and not claim it back because it seemed too pettey - and they were on 3x my salary!

So anyway, not only would Lambert be a new broom (a positive in this climate of political ennui) but he has also confirmed he will commute to London - as he already did in his previous job (from which he is taking a sabbatical in order to campaign) and therefore not stick the electorate with an £80k mortgage bill every year.

No party has my complete heart, but the LibDems have my hope.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by DanaC

As an individual he's quite impressive. He put in a very good performance on the debate. But ... light on detail. He was the most personable and accessible of the three.

Sounds familiar. <runs and hides>

[DanaC]

lol @ Classic

Bring on PR. The two party system might prevent the BNP from gaining a hold, but the older I get the more I think some kind of coalition (and therefore compromising) government migth be better than this constant head to head battle.

[Shawnee123]

Sometimes the person who is more personable and accessible is just about 50 times smarter than the other guy.

Never underestimate the power of being able to verbalize a coherent thought.

<doesn't run and doesn't hide>

[classicman]

Sometimes. . . sometimes not.




thanks for getting the joke Dana.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

but he has also confirmed he will commute to London - as he already did in his previous job (from which he is taking a sabbatical in order to campaign) and therefore not stick the electorate with an £80k mortgage bill every year.

High speed train.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Good news for the Liberal Dems?

It is time to reframe the question. Banks and financial institutions should do what economy and society want them to do – support enterprise, direct credit to where it is needed and be part of the system that generates investment and innovation. Andrew Haldane – and the governor of the Bank of England – are right. We need to break up our banks, limit their capacity to speculate and bring them back to earth. Britain should also launch an official investigation into what went wrong – and hand the findings to the Serious Fraud Office. This needs to become this election campaign's number one issue – not one which either a compromised Labour party or a temporising Conservative party will relish. The Lib Dems, the fiercest critics of the banks, have begun to get very lucky.

Full story.

[ZenGum]

Innnnteresting.

Dana, your "bring on PR": is that proportional representation, or preferential voting?
Do you have either there?
If you're interested, check out the Australian constitution. It is basically the brainchild of the latter English Enlightenment. Locke and esp Mill would approve.
The keys are the two house system: the lower house on a single-member electorate, with preferential voting, the upper house state-by-state multi-member with preferential voting, the PM elected by the dominant party in the lower house (British style) and a Governor General who is very nearly redundant.
The lower house generally falls to the two-party system, and that decides who gets to be PM, so we always get a government. The upper house is mostly the two main parties, but smaller parties and a few independents get in and usually end up holding the balance of power. Thus there is direction from a definite government/cabinet/PM, but sometimes negotiated compromise in the upper house. The PM gets most, but not all, of what (s)he wants.
Oh yeah, secular govt, independent judiciary, checks and balances, etc etc.
What we have isn't perfect, but it is pretty good, I reckon.