Lib dems beaten in to 6th in Barnsley

[2cats2many]

The independent candidate even polled more votes than them.

Is this the beginning of the end for the Lib Dems, or do you think they will win back support over the next 4 years?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12643639

'A LibDem replacement leader would have to be a plain speaker and we'd need him to spell out in words of one syllable that electing Nick Clegg and getting into bed with the Tories was craven and the king of all blunders.
And he'd need to apologise unreservedly to the students for the party's recent betrayal, AND reiterate the pre-election promise to work towards bringing back free higher education (a promise which, in the parliamentary vote, most of the rank and file LibDem MPs actually did not betray.)'

Expect Nick Clegg to say exactly that as the next election approaches. He will be very contrite, a "repentent sinner", just like Gordon Brown was over Mrs. Duffy. He will apologise to us, "the bosses" and pledge that his goal is a "fairer society". The Guardian will again back him "enthusiastically", just like they did this time.

When I heard this my first reaction was one of mirth and merriment.

Then I discovered that the BNP had beaten them and I thought "oh shit". There's no way this is good news for anyone.

'Expect Nick Clegg to say exactly that as the next election approaches. He will be very contrite, a "repentent sinner", just like Gordon Brown was over Mrs. Duffy. He will apologise to us, "the bosses" and pledge that his goal is a "fairer society". The Guardian will again back him "enthusiastically", just like they did this time.'

Oh he'll still be LibDem leader then, will he?

It depends if the media all back him like they did this time. They can perform miracles by "enthusiastically" backing someone.

Highly unlikely IMO

I mean he's not even doing a good job of being a "Tory"-in-charge - he's rubbish! He has become a figure of fun - where's his way back from that?

It was the media that boosted Gordon Brown when he was Chancellor and gave him the nickname "Prudence", after which he promptly sold off our gold at a rock bottom price. The media played him up so much that it turned him giddy and he actually believed that he had "saved the world" and that there were only "50 days left to save the planet".

The media can do anything, they can make the majority believe anything such as global warming. There was a time when the Sun was pretending that it was turning away from Blair and they started boosting William Hague. It was just for a bargaining position. Blair flew over to see Murdoch and discussions were had. Then the Sun turned on William Hague and printed the baseball cap on backwards etc.

What the press wants, it can get. That's why Campbell and Co. also gave exclusive leads to the Sun and the Times, and Blunkett and Straw always had full page spreads in the Sun. They feared that it was the "Sun wot won it". When Murdoch abandoned Labour, their time was up.

Other way round IMO - very pragmatic, old Rupert - he goes with the flow. He backed them in the first place when it became clear the Tories were going to lose. When their time was up, Murdoch abandoned them.

Brown was never a joke. Clegg is a joke.

Nick Clegg is in power because nearly all of the media, including the Guardian, played him up. The Guardian went so far as "enthusiastically" backing him.

Ed Miliband was also played up by the media before he took charge of Labour. Now the media have changed their mind about him. But they may always play him up again in the future.

Rupert knows what he wants to do. Blair flew over to Australia to visit him. Rupert gets what Rupert wants, others deliver it for him. Vince Cable said he was declaring war on Murdoch. Tapes were released of him saying that and he had to swiftly resign. Rupert's bid has been approved, I think.

I don't agree that Murdoch potentially getting from the Tories a proportion of what he wanted over Sky would mean that if he chose to back Clegg (as what??? ) at some future date we would all roll over because the Sun said whatever the Sun said.

And in fact Clegg is only "in power" because he, personally, couldn't stand Gordon Brown & so refused at that point to do a deal with Labour - who were always more natural allies politically - even though the vast majority of his party would have preferred Labour. However short-lived such an agreement might have been he would have stuck to his supposed principles, & would be more respected in the country now.

I don't believe he can come back from that - Lib Dem votes will plummet in the next election anyway but with a different leader they might not do quite so badly.

I think the so-called deal with Labour was all theatre, it was never for real. John Reid made sure to kill it off in case it had any chance.

I am not saying that Clegg will survive. I think he will be sacrificed, just like Blair was. But, I think he could definitely survive if it was in the interests of the media to spin him out of the mess that he is in. I don't think it will happen, because they can just as easily spin someone else in.

I don't think he could whether the media wanted him to or not. Murdoch & co are not so powerful they can do an emperor's new clothes on us. (Sky & the Sun are both shit sources of news anyway)

IMO.

I missed the 5 days that shook the world (or however many there were) - I was on holiday in France with no internet access & only heard, via text, when it was a done deal; so all the minutiae went over my head & I only knew about the end result & opinion stuff afterwards.

I suppose that might colour my judgment a bit.

But I will deny to my dying breath that Murdoch actually affects election outcomes. He just jumps on bandwagons.

But a lot of the LibDems previous popularity has been false though. They attracted voters who were rejecting Labour or the tories. So their share of teh vote was always artificially high and not really representative of the electorate. And they never seem to really acknockledge this.

Clegg looked even more weak-faced than usual. I did hoot when I hear the news this morning though as last night they were predicting they'd come 4th and that that would be bad anyway

Ponders I still remember back in 1992 when The Sun had a front page editorial saying if Labour had won "will the last one to leave the country turn off thelights" a few days before the election and that had a decisive effect on elections that had hitherto been in the balance. Murdoch shapes and moulds politics in the UK. Which is a tad ironic for an American citizen of Australian origin.

Whoever says he doesn't is either ill informed or on his pay roll.

and if the Sun hadn't said that Labour would have won? I think not! Kinnock did for Labour himself, in various ways...

The Sun wasn't responsible for the Labour landslide in 97 either.

Oh well. I'm not on his payroll so am clearly ill-informed

(The headline was "If Kinnock wins today will the last person etc etc")

Without Murdoch's blatant backing Blair would not have won the '97 elections. He even admitted it himself. New Labour courted him ferociously and moved to the right to gain his support.

The Sun, The Times, Sunday Times, News of the World, Sky............ain't just The Sun.

'Without Murdoch's blatant backing Blair would not have won the '97 elections'

Really.

Unlike UQD, I think it DOES matter if a major political party comes sixth and loses its deposit. That's humiliating. Second would be OK. Third would be OK in some seats. But sixth? Behind the BNP? Losing their deposit? Deeply embarrassing.

I suspect the LD leadership is gambling that making the most savage cuts at the start means by the next election the economy will be on the up and we will all have forgotten what a bunch of shysters they are. In their eyes, clearly it's OK to destroy services for vulnerable people as long as they can tart them up by the next election. If councils were able to make cuts gradually, it'd be far better for the people who rely on, or work in, public services. But oh no, disabled children are being sacrificed for the Lib Dems' chances of survival.

Pissing off an entire generation of young people was a very foolish move. Especially as voters are, by and large, predisposed to stick to the party they first voted for.

Btw, I did my dissertation on the Sun's role in the '92 election. Interviewed Trevor Kavanagh, the then political editor. (Bless him very much for giving his time to an inky fingered student.) Think after several thousand words I decided the claim that 'It was The Sun wot won it' was rather overblown.

It wasn't JUST The Sun wot won it edam. Murdoch's much more than just The Sun.

Very nice of Kavanagh to be interviewed by you though. And a fascinating subject.

YY I do know that Murdoch's empire is more extensive than one title. I did write a whole disseration on this! 'It was The Sun wot won it' is just a quote from the splash the day after the election.

and the one that everybody remembers & quotes (& in some cases, even believes )