I'm at a loss - why are the LD's being punished and who is voting Tory?

[smashingtime]

It feels to me as though the LD's are being punished for the Coalition but really it is mostly Tory policies which are in the process of ruining the country. The Tories haven't done badly in these elections so are most people really unaffected by cuts or is it the grey vote that is making the difference?

Think there are 2 different types of Lib dem; the left side of the party who may have previously voted Labor, and the right side, (libertarian) side that may disagree with conservative party policy, but sees the coalition as a stepping stone in making the Lib Dems a more viable party.

Seems to me that the Lib Dem voters who previously voted Labor were horrified to see that their vote was used to allow a Tory government into power.

People voting Tory are those who have always voted Tory, and also people who feel that the Lib Dems are doing the best for the country. Also some 'floating' previously Labor voters who don't think Ed Miliband is electable.

28 Tory councillors, 18 Lib Dems, one UKIP and one Independent. That's our newly Tory council - taken from the Lib Dems. Labour seen as completely out of touch with this area so they never had a chance anyway - didn't field a candidate here. Our libraries have been safe so far...wonder if they still are?

There is nothing to 'punish' the Tories for - they've done nothing to let down their voters. Also ther are some very naive views on Tories on MN and elsewhere. Governments - not Tory ones or any others - don't want to punish and hurt people 'not like us'. We might not like the way they implement policies but the intention is to improve situations, however wrongheaded the approach to those who disagree with them. There is much more friendship across the house than some people seem to think possible - it's not Compassionate Good Guys vs Evil Bastards. A more grown up idea of politics would make the election results easier to understand.

wikolite

You make a fair point but have you noticed that those who being "punished" did little to cause the economic crash and those that caused it still have their snouts deep in the trough and are literally laughing all the way to the bank.

As always the Tories look after the rich and powerful to the detriment of others

The usual pattern is Lab govs overspend and mismanage the money, the Tories come and sort it all out and then Labour comes back to spend it all again. That's why people think Labour is more 'compassionate'. What else they do is another matter but re national finances can't see why anyone is surprised. Blaming the bankers is only part of the problem. Significant but nowhere near the whole picture.

If that is the case Lucky, why were the Tories committed to match Labour's spending plans right up to the economic meltdown?

I don't understand this argument regarding the "people who caused this mess". I assume you are referring to the banks but the people who are villyifying them now are the same ones who were praising them 5 years ago. The financial crash has been highly damaging to the economy but the financial sector has been the major driver of economic growth in the 10-15 years. The Labour Party had been egging on the City for years because it swas fueling their so called endless economic boom and now it has been exposed for the fallacy that it always was they've turned on them.

I think, if we're asking about parties being punished, the Labour Party will be feeling a little sore across the buttocks this evening. They may have picked up lots of disillusioned LD voters but surely they would have expected to do far better as a whole? Scotland is a complete disaster. (Has anyone seen Milliband today?) Clegg knew that having formerly been the party of protest his would now be judged as a party in power and suffer as a consequence. The Conservatives might have expected some element of protest and have survived remarkably well. But Labour - shiny new leader and all - seem to have struggled badly.

StroppyDad - We were out of recession a year ago were we? Laugh out Loud.

Where do you get your information from?

Because you reap what you sow?
You sell yourself to the highest bidder for your 15 minutes of fame?

Dunno.

But am fucking celebrating tonight.

Lucky, I see it a bit different.

The Tories damage people and society and cause mass unemployment then Labour have to spend money to repair the damage done to society by the Tories.

You only need to remember the state of the NHS and schools and the unemployment level when Major was defeated to know this is true.

The highest levels of unemployment are always under Tory governments.

Since Cameron became PM our youth unemployment has reach record levels that even Thatcher was unable to match.

Because people find it easier to pin the blame on Nick Clegg rather than look at the whole situation. The last financial year saw the Government have a budget deficit of around 11% of GDP which is clearly unsustainable long term and any attempt to maintain it would see bond yields soar to eye-watering levels and would make us unable to service our debts so we would need external assistance. This was using the plans enacted by the Labour Party so quite why so many people think it is all Nick Cleggs fault astounds me.

Giddy

I take your point but will point out that most Labour seats are in poorer areas and most Tory seats are in affluent or at least better off areas.

I agree with SmallWhiteCat. The naivety on here and in the popular press about the current political situation is astounding. The Lib Dem supporters that are apparently leaving in droves are those who were never really LD Supporters to begin with - either left leaning floating voters who wanted to punish the Labour Party or students who were only really interested in the one aspect of the Lib Dem manifesto which was never going to be workable anyway even if they'd got into power on a landslide majority.

Anyone who voted for the LibDems for either of those reasons was always going to be dissapointed.

They are also only the junior partner in this coalition, so could only ever be a moderating influence and nothing else. They have done enough to soften some quite harsh Tory policy (delaying Trident, preventing the marriage tax breaks, preventing the inheritance tax changes which would have benefited only the rich, ensuring the income levels for CTC weren't as harshly cut as the Tories wanted etc) and have pushed forward at a faster pace some of the better ideas such as the increase in the tax threshold.

Yes, they've made mistakes - perhaps giving away too many opposition voting rights, allowing the referendum to be AV instead of PR - but this is the first time they've had to do it and they were working against much more experienced, Machiavellian politicians. I am actually surprised they have accomplished as much as they have.

Anyone who voted Lib Dem and didn't expect a Tory - LD coalition to pan out like this is either incapable of understanding the subtleties of politics or is extremely naive. Power is always about compromise - whether it is as part of a coalition or majority (The last three labour governments only managed to introduce something like 45% of their manifesto promises and there is the classic promise, caught on camera from George Osbourne that universal benefits such as CB wouldn't be changed or cut).

As for the local elections, local concerns are usually very different from National concerns - Tory councils are often better run than Labour or Lib Dem councils and people will vote differently in the locals than they will in the Nationals.

The Lib Dems have been burnt badly and will need to regroup and rebuild, but they will be able to take a lot of lessons from this coalition experience and I think over the next 10 years it will make them a lot stronger.

wubblybubbly - because they wanted to win votes. These people are politicians. Which is why Labour can't be drawn on the cuts they would have to have made - of course they wanted to go into opposition when severe measures would be on the cards. Much more comfortable. I'm not defending the Tories by the way, much as it sounds like it. Just pointing out that politicians are players of games whatever their colour. As GiddyPickle said, you can frame exactly the same situation in whatever terms suit your point of view. And successful politicians are experts at that.

Except Nick Clegg. He's got a challenge and no mistake.

In truth there was no need for Clegg to enter a coalition with any other party, he should have let the Tories form a minority government.

But the Lib Dems wanted a bit of influence for a change. I can see why they took the gamble. And it's still early days - only a year in. I think the Coalition will survive and could still improve it's reputation - although maybe with a different leader of the Lib Dem contingent. Or maybe there will be a Labour landslide at the next election but I doubt it will be that clear cut.

Lucky, if the Tories wanted to win votes, surely all they had to do was point out the folly of Labour's spending plans? They didn't do that because the deficit was well within generally accepted levels up until the financial meltdown and the worldwide recession.

I'm sure it's convenient for the Tories to forget that, but I'm happy to remind anyone at any given opportunity.

Oh yes - why didn't they think of that? Because I'm pretty sure winning votes was a top priority. I imagine they knew that no-one but Tory supporters would pay any attention to that line of attack. They did win votes anyway - just not as many as they wanted. And so far they are holding on to them - in all the usual places.

Also, maybe the Tories were "committed to matching Labour's spending" in the same way that the Lib Dems were committed to their Tuition fees policy.

My point is, Labour's spending plans were fine, even the Tories acknowledged that.

You said that Labour overspent and mis-managed the economy, they didn't. I'm merely pointing that out.

You've changed your argument now of course.

I haven't got a fixed argument. I just don't think the Tories were acknowledging Labour's plans were 'fine'. Labour did overspend - I don't think that's in doubt. Labour's spending history was quite obviously not 'fine' at all. What games the Tories play while in opposition to try to appeal to disaffected Labour voters is another story. Although with much the same plot as Labour in opposition worrying about appealing to disaffected Tories.

The real sting of the cuts haven't fully hit yet.

Waiting lists in the NHS are up slightly, but not enough for there to be an outcry.

Privatization of parts of the NHS has been put on hold, but will happen.

Hospital consultants will be freed from having to work F/T in the NHS and be able to swan off and do private work, as was the case pre-New Labour.

The new assessments for people on Benefits haven't hit yet.

Child Benefit isn't being cut until next year.

The results of these local elections will act as an affirmation for the Tories, and boy will we know about it this time next year.

It ain't going to be pretty..............

Why are the Lib Dems being punished?
They are acting without a mandate
They won seats with centre left votes and yet are propping up a right wing government which is making serious moves to destroy public services for ideological reasons

Who votes Tory?
I'm at a loss on this one, but would suggest either wealthy people or people who have difficulty empathising with other human beings because they lack the imagination.