A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for the Lib Dems. It is not a vote for the Conservative or Labour Parties. It is not a way of ‘Letting Gordon in through the backdoor’, or of tacitly consenting to a Cameroonian ‘DIY’ society. It is a vote for the Lib Dems.
Since the debates, the other two main parties have woken up to the idea that people may genuinely want a change in British Politics but, whether because they are deliberately obtuse or have simply been too well conditioned by their duopoly on power, neither seems able to grasp the motivation behind this swing towards the Lib Dems. Expenses. Sleaze. Cashcroft. Recession. Iraq. Afghanistan. This list goes on and, while many can be laid at the door of the incumbent, the record of the Conservatives means that they can not believably claim to be breaking this cycle that has been perpetuated the Labour/Conservative duopoly.
It is embarrassing frankly that, having said after the debates that the Lib Dems would now find their policies under more intense scrutiny, the best either party has been able to come up with is scare-mongering; trying to associate the Lib Dems with the other.
God forbid that the electorate might associate the Lib Dems with, well with the Lib Dems. No; in that way lies ruin. They must, instead, continue to frighten the electorate, and portray the Lib Dems as indecisive and fuzzy. It’s that same attitude, which both parties are guilty of. An attitude of preserving the present way of doing things. ‘Better the devil you know, than the devil you don’t’. Unfortunately for them, such a line is no longer ringing true.
Indeed, the main reason they have been allowed to get away with marginalising the Liberal Democrat voice is our corrupt electoral system. A system both have insisted on maintaining. Labour makes some more positive noises about change now, as they did in 1997. As they have done periodically over the last 13 years. The hypocrisy is astounding. Broken promises and bare-faced lies are no foundation for 5 more years.
So no, a vote for the Lib Dems is not a vote for ‘5 more years of Gordon’. Or for an elitist Government in which, if your local school is failing, you have to sort it out for yourself. And you can run your local hospital whilst you’re not running your local school. And when you are running neither your hospital nor your school, you can work your 40 hours a week in the job that you are trained to do. No, a vote for the Lib Dems is just that: a vote for the Lib Dems.
A vote for the Lib Dems is a vote for change. Not in a futile, rearranging of the deck chairs. No, in a worthwhile and considered way. It is a vote for electoral reform, to ensure that every vote counts. It is a vote for smaller class sizes for our children. A vote for a fairer tax system. It is a vote for a military that is equipped for today’s challenges; not yesterdays.
Indeed, Trident is symbolic of the wider debate. Both Labour and Conservative want to renew the system; to renew the status quo. Both Labour and Conservative want to renew what worked yesterday, regardless of the challenges faced today.
A vote for the Liberal Democrats is a vote for a fresh perspective on these challenges. A vote for a party which has proposed genuine reform time and again, and time and again has found the path blocked by the other two. So no, a vote for the Lib Dems is not a vote for Gordon or Dave. For Alistair or George; Harriet or Eric. Toffs or Unions. No. A vote for the Lib Dems is, quite simply, a vote for the Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Have a goat day tomorrow!
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
The Joy of Six 1528
Endometriosis and acetylation
How Chancellor Reeves torpedoed the economy
Kira Collins
Ian Patterson
Daniel Walker
Richard Flowers
Mick Taylor
5 Comments
Generally, you are right, Charlie. The exception would be in the Lab-Con marginals where the LDs are nowhere. Given the probability that one of the candidates will have a disaster in one of the remaining debates, there is still the risk of a Commons majority emerging. Lib Dem supporters, not least in the Lab-Con marginals, will decide this election and they can block a Commons majority by:
1- Pursuing every vote in seats where the LDs are first, second or a close third.
2- Voting Tory in Lab-Con micromarginals to stop another Brown majority
3- Voting Labour in Lab-Con marginals where Labour start 10%+ ahead to block a Tory majority
Everyone knows the FPTP system is pretty rotten. A higher LD vote count might well mean a bigger mandate and stronger argument for PR even if it doesn’t affect the number of seats got.
Hi,
I feel REALLY stupid.. On Sky News website, there is an interactive poll calculator, which (to me) makes no sense at all. It’s located here. The problem for me is that the figures don’t add up.Looking at the 2005 results, Labour had 36.1% of the vote, which apparently amounts to 349 seats, whereas with 21% the Lib Dems only hold xx seats. If you tinker with the calculator to give both Labour and Liberal Democrats, for arguments sake, 36.1% each, with Tories holding a mere 19.7% (if only!), and other parties holding 8.1%.. this works out, according to the chart as:
Labour 36.1% = 363 (seats)
Lib Dem 36.1% = 181
Con 19.7% = 77
Other 8.1% = 29
All of this is, of course, hypothetical, but if two parties hold 36.1% EACH, how does that give Labour such an enormous majority? Are the Lib Dems not putting forward as many seats, or is something completely remiss with the chart (or, and more likely, my poor brain!)
Look at the current prediction of a Hung Parliament. Labour hold 28%, which amounts to 273 seats. Lib Dem hold 30% (which is, the last time I checked, more than 28%!!), yet only have 100 seats. Just ahead with an extra 3% (33%), the Tories are predicted to hold 245 seats.
How in the name of sanity does having a LOWER percentage (Lab), give you MORE seats than a party with 30% (Lib Dem), and such a vast difference for the Tories in seats with only 3% above the LD’s.
I hope this makes sense, and that someone is able to answer in simple laymans (for me, read idiot!) terminology…! Is it hypothetically possible for a party, say for example the Tories, to win outright, and put Lib Dem’s as the Opposition Party, or is it always going to be a Labour (or Tory) opposition? I don’t understand the dynamics that make up the House of Commons. About the only thing I am aware of is that a party needs 326+ seats to hold the majority.. can anyone elaborate on the minority and opposition requirements.
I have to confess that, while I consider myself relatively intelligent, I am, shall we say, mathematically challenged! So anyone able to break all of this nonsense down into simple laymans english would have my gratitude, because at the moment my brain is fit to burst!
Thanks in advance of any replies.
Darren
What I don’t understand is why Cameron keeps going on about voting for “real change”. I mean, I get the argument (the usual “LibDems aren’t going to win anyway so it’ll hand the seat to Labour” self-fulfilling thing), but surely he doesn’t have such little faith in the electorate as to think that they’re not going to spot that it’s a very long time since the LibDems have been in a position of power? If altering that isn’t change, what is? But then Conservatives… respect for the electorate… hmmm….
And Darren, I truly wish I could help you! That all looks like gobbledegook to me too >:-/
Actually, that probably should have been “Lib Dems”, not “LibDems”. Sorry, I’m cross, that’s my excuse…