I see, predictably,
...that the Clegg nominations have started.

Let me offer an alternative: you lot. Yes, you, you bunch of mongs. Or rather, anyone who didn't actually go out and vote Liberal Democrat.

Because, thing is, if you had done, then maybe we wouldn't have a sodding coalition. We'd have a genuine Liberal Democrat Government, and maybe - just - it might be able to keep a few more of the pledges.

Instead we have over five times as many Conservatives as LibDems. This is due, funnily enough, to more mongs voting Conservative. Now it would be lovely if, where their policies conflict (as with tuition fees and a zillion others), the LibDem policies held sway. But simple force of numbers means it ain't gonna happen. Instead, basically, we get a Conservative government but 16.6666% less evil (I think my maths is right. The coincidence of the word "Conservative" and the number "666" makes me think it must be).

The single most depressing post-election statistic I've seen is this one. "The polling over-statement of the Liberal Democrats was caused by a lot of their support coming from the young who, as it turned out, failed to vote." Or, in other words, we could have got a decent result for once... if people who blithely said to the pollsters "oh, of course, I'll be voting LibDem" had actually bothered to go down and vote.

But, you know, if Photoshopping big noses onto Nick Clegg salves your conscience, go to it.
(ChaRleyTroniC is invincible with his chips and cheese, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 16:51, 49 replies)

I have to agree.
But, I didn't vote myself.
Why? Because I don't think even LibDem's are really liberal and the current system of voting means I am not able to vote for the party I want.
I agree though that the LibDens have their hands tied here and if people didn't write them off they would be in power right now and could be judged fairly.
As it is this shithole of a country will have another Labour government next time thanks to this kind of bollocks and will become more of a pre-cold war style piece of shit second-rate country.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 16:58, closed)

If we carry on the way we're going, we'll become a pre-Renaissance style piece of shit third-world country.
Apart from the 0.1% who will enjoy an wonderful, paradisical existence paid for by the rest of us.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 16:59, closed)

Europe will bail us out before that happens
blah blah blah
*not listening*
(Canazza is mostly listening to Yes, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:01, closed)

Shame, I'm looking forward to a cramped and disease-ridden life without permanent shelter, electricity or running water.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:07, closed)

*insert Sunderland joke here*

( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:50, closed)

You must live in Pennywell.
Is that OK?
( His Popiness the Hole Invaded Poland on, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 22:30, closed)

Damn, I clicked "I like this" instead of "Reply"
I definitely do not like this.

There have been times where I've not wanted any of the candidates. So I got down to the polling station and wrote this all over the paper. It's counted as a spoilt vote but at least I made the effort to say something.

If I didn't do that, people would have every right to judge me as apathetic.
( Flowerpot No longer has the vapours thanks to DTH, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:30, closed)

I'll repeat again for the hard of thinking.
I didn't vote because I wasn't able to vote for the party I wanted to because we don't live in a democracy.
To spoil a vote means nothing to anyone -- it's not recorded in some "this person didn't like it" register you know.
(Me, I'm not... in any way intoxicated, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:12, closed)

This
I nearly didn't vote (for all sorts of reasons, none of which have to do with apathy, and most to do with the opposite of apathy)

But the glib "Oh, if you didn't vote you can't complain" that people come out with is the worst kind of fallacious bollocks. As if the outcome of your single vote is in any way predictable.

I didn't vote for the Lib Dems, because I don't agree with their policies.
( Mighty Nibus who dares gins | @nibus, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:59, closed)

The outcome isn't predictable
...yet voting is, however, the only thing that actually changes anything. Well, bumping off Murdoch would change things but is for some inexplicable reason illegal.
(ChaRleyTroniC is invincible with his chips and cheese, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 18:03, closed)

Well it is a bit like not even trying to help, but bitching when the boulder rolls down the hill.
Having said that, I'm in little mood for the coming election, seeing as I find myself disappointed with the Lib Dems as of now or any of the choices. Though I'm open if their manifesto is a lot better than the shite they're churning out now. Not that it would matter anyway considering my constituency is a Labour safe seat.

Further I think the op can refer to all those claims that since "you vote Lib Dem you brought the apocalypse".
( Christian's Bolt and Ski, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 19:50, closed)

Yeah
I think your comments may be correct judging by some of the news coming from polling stations on election night. i.e. youngsters turning up at the latest possible moment to vote and then getting refused. My advice for lazy people is to get the postal vote...It really makes it sooo easy.
(bROKEN aRROW PUA HVI Master, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 16:58, closed)

or vote at 8am
before work, like I did.

Or, if you're a student, do it after breakfast, around 1pm. Still plenty of time to go vote :P
(Canazza is mostly listening to Yes, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:00, closed)

I'm happy to say
I voted lib dem. but it never got them into office. Labour won my constituency seat.

I hope the coallition holds together until they push through the electoral reform. Although, one of the first things the Tories did was push that back to 2012.

Come the next election, I'll still be voting Lib Dem.

Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the Lib Dems can do jack shit in this coallition, and that if they don't tow the line, even if they hate it, the country would be in an even worse position (as much as I loathe it, the spending cuts SHOULD be saving the country money, even if it's at the expense of the wrong people, no cuts, or fewer than needed, would get through if the parlament were truly hung)
(Canazza is mostly listening to Yes, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 16:59, closed)

You idiot.
If the LibDems did get more votes and got second place, they'd have less power than they currently have, 'cus the coalation would be between Labour and Conservatives.

Who the fuck do you think you are telling me how I should vote? We're in a democracy, and I'll vote how I damn well please, and you know what? I'm more than happy with the Cons being in power after the fucking distruction of this country's economy by Labour.

Gone and Good Riddence are the days of the people Labour put into power of hosting parties and frivilous things (such as duck ponds or whatever )at great expense to the tax payer.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:03, closed)

sorry but
dailymail.co.uk is that way ------------>
(ChaRleyTroniC is invincible with his chips and cheese, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:05, closed)

No, it's not
It's further to the right than that.
(Canazza is mostly listening to Yes, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:06, closed)

Yeah', and the gardian is the other way, but that is also totally irrelevant.
Your main point seems to be about the student fees, why the fuck should I pay for your "life experiance" ?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:14, closed)

Erm
you appear to think I'm a student. I'd love to be that young again, but I'm not.
(ChaRleyTroniC is invincible with his chips and cheese, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:25, closed)

Ok then, that's fair enough, I thought that from your complaint about tution fees.
Let's move onto the fact that the only reason LibDem got into the power they've got today is because they were on _third_ place, and that they're not there to make up the policies, they're there basiclly to provide a majority to the goverment that the people of this country voted for.

I have rarely been proud of _any_ politition, but when I heard that Camron got a BA flight to the states rather than private, I thought "Good on you".
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:29, closed)

Well, that's the thing
"they're there basiclly to provide a majority to the goverment that the people of this country voted for" - yep, my point exactly (with the usual proviso about our voting system being screwed).

If all the people nominating Clegg as Villain of the Year (here and elsewhere) had actually voted for him, then maybe we'd have a LibDem government in a position to fulfil its pledges. But they didn't, and we don't.
(ChaRleyTroniC is invincible with his chips and cheese, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:31, closed)

But if they did, then the LibDem would be The Opersition, and would have even less of an effect on the goverment than they have now.
They're like the runt of the litter who got dinner because the two big cats were almost-equal in fighting.

Clegg being where he is all thanks to the fact that he _didn't_ get enough votes to beat labour, and labour _didn't_ get enough to oppose Cons.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:41, closed)

If you didn't vote LibDem because you don't like the LibDems
then that's fair enough. I mean, I think you're wrong, but it's your choice.

But for those didn't vote LibDem because they couldn't be arsed... then complained because the LibDems aren't able to put their promised policies into action... well, what did they expect?
(ChaRleyTroniC is invincible with his chips and cheese, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:43, closed)

What about those of us who didn't vote because nobody represented what we wanted?
To be honest, I think the things that are wrong are not nesserarly the polititions, but the people who seem to have jobs for the sake of having jobs; esspesh those high up ones that pay a lot.

Like when you hear of 'councilers' (what on earth do they do anyway?) who are on £100-200k, PLUS expenses.

I think the benfits system is a disgrace, I know people who have had to wait 3 months for housing, and if it wasn't for his mate, he'd be homeless. Yet you get other people who seem to be able to get everything straight away, I just don't get it.
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 18:05, closed)

But if you want things to change, you've got to do something
Sure, I don't agree with everything the LibDems propose, and certainly not the Clegg/Laws wing of the party. But if you don't vote for the least worst party, the most worst one gets in. (Hmm... probably need to work on my grammar there.)
(ChaRleyTroniC is invincible with his chips and cheese, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 18:09, closed)

But then, should one of their policies you don't agree with, comes into play, it would be your fault... if you follow on from the same logic.

( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 18:28, closed)

you seem quite angry.

(Canazza is mostly listening to Yes, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:27, closed)

Autistics also have trouble interpreting people's attitude and feelings.
/ac

Tell me, how did you come to that conclusion, was it it simply because I disagree with you?
( G/PP 💩💩💩💩💩&#128, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:30, closed)

I think it was the liberal sprinkling of "Fuck" that did it.
and calling people names is descending further into Playground territory
(Canazza is mostly listening to Yes, Fri 24 Dec 2010, 9:14, closed)

You do realise
that you can be Conservative without reading the Daily Mail?
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 19:25, closed)

just thought i'd point out
that the duck pond thing was sir Peter Viggers. (tory)
( Glovington, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 19:08, closed)

You should be glad they got that many votes
it'll never happen again.
( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:04, closed)

which is a shame
we'll never have a 3-party system.

Lest we all vote BNP and rebuild the reich.
(Canazza is mostly listening to Yes, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:07, closed)

Are you saying I made them lie?
by forcing them into a coalition where placing a sweaty hand on the levers of power is more important than little things like honesty.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:13, closed)

Yeah, we should have definitely voted more of the flip flopping careerist cunts in

( wotofco pissing in your swimming pool, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:20, closed)

No, I'm not
Breaking the pledge was a really, really dumb thing to do, and I'm not attempting to justify that.

But it doesn't make any difference. Unless there were lots more LibDem MPs, tuition fees were going to rise. Doesn't make any difference whether or not a bunch of LibDems have been made Minister for Paperclips, or whatever.

It comes down to this: if you want a policy to be carried out, you have to vote for the guys proposing it. Labour would have put tuition fees up. The Conservatives would, and have. The only chance of stopping it was either to have the LibDems as the biggest party (far-fetched but possible) or the Greens (which would be lovely, but... calling Planet Earth). That didn't happen - why not? Because not enough people voted for them.
(ChaRleyTroniC is invincible with his chips and cheese, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 17:24, closed)

I just have to pipe up here
because what you just said is a load of bumwad. There didn't need to be any more libdem MPs elected to stop the increase in tuition fees going through. All they neeeded to do was vote as they promised they'd vote and the bill wouldn't have passed. As it was it passed by 21 votes, and that's with 27 libdem MPs voting FOR the bill and 8 not voting at all.
(Hippo_of_Doom, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 18:19, closed)

What would the consequences have been?
If the Lib dems voted against this they would have destabilised the coalition government. It would almost certainly result in more instability in the government and probably a re-election. This is not what the country needs at the moment.

Lib dems are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They promised to support the Tories and agreed on a revised and improved tuition fee rise (without lib dem influence there would not have been a limit on the amount a uni could charge for tuition fees). At the moment the Lib dems best chance of power is in a coalition, if this one doesn't work and they don't get the electoral reform they need then the uk will effectively become a 2 party state.
(Little Animal Disaster isn't finishing what he started, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:04, closed)

are you saying we're better off with the tories slashing and burning there way through public services
as long as there's some stability in parliment for a while?
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:35, closed)

You may not agree with Tory policy
...and I don't either, but they are doing what they think is best for the economy. It is yet to be seen if it will be successful in dragging us out of the mire, but at least they are doing something. With a minority government there would be so much politicking and in fighting that nothing would get done. The advantage of the coalition and stability is that the government can make plans for the economic recovery over the next 5 years. This involves things like tuition fees, the benefit the government will not see for 3 years.

If the coalition collapses next year and an election is called, say Labour get in, they will try and change everything and we will be back to square one, and worse off.

Economic recovery will not happen over night.
(Little Animal Disaster isn't finishing what he started, Fri 24 Dec 2010, 10:38, closed)

Eh?
the leadership of the libdems has shown itself to be the sort that will lie and manouver to get power. You are not going to convince me that these very same people would of somehow been a different breed if more people had voted for them
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 23 Dec 2010, 18:29, closed)

They don't have power
Judge them if and when they do.

The lib dems would have followed through on all their election promises and had detailed plans and how they would do it and where the money would come from to allow them to scrap tuition fees. They weren't elected, they are makeweights in a TORY government. They are not covering themselves in glory, but the responsibility is on the voters for voting for a TORY government. If the Tories hadn't won so many seats and the Lib dems could have formed a majority government with Labour then they probably would have done (but I bet a lib-lab coalition wouldn't be scrapping tuition fees either). A re-election would have been a disaster for the Lib dems, it would have been a 2 horse race between Labour and Conservative, and all their work would have been for nothing. They had only one choice and that was to get in bed with the Devil.
(Little Animal Disaster isn't finishing what he started, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:11, closed)

The 'voters' didn't vote for a Tory government, they never got a majority...remember?
They are in power along with the Libdems, who's MPs are voting for policies against their own manifesto, rendering themselve un-electable for the forseeable. It's not complicated.
( Ring Of Fire A petty, drooling belming butthurt retard., Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:32, closed)

The Tories won the election
So they were chosen by the people as the most popular party. The Lib Dem manifesto was written on the proviso that they won the election, they didn't they don't have the power to enforce their policies. They have diluted some Tory policies, but if you think having a 16% Lib Dem Government means they will be able to implement their manifesto as they see fit then you are wrong.

If the lib dems had to make some sacrifices to make the coalition work, and they had to make a lot more sacrifices than the Tories because they won a lot less seats. If they hadn't made those sacrifices and formed a coalition then there would have been a re-election and everyone who was anti-tory would vote labour and everyone who was anti labour would vote tory. The lib dems would have been screwed.

Until the elctoral reform comes into play, which is what they fought most strongly for, they will never stand a chance in this country.
(Little Animal Disaster isn't finishing what he started, Fri 24 Dec 2010, 10:45, closed)

The Tories
DIDN'T win the last election thats the entire point. They didn't win enough votes to form a government and neither did Labour hence one party or another needed the Lib Dems or less likely a coalition of the other lesser parties to form a government. If Clegg and his cronies had been smart (and or had a spine or principals) they would have agreed to the coalition and then just stuck to their guns on their own policies. They had a chance at real power as the Tories cannot get anything done without their support.
As it is Clegg has made them unelectable for a very very long time
(andythepieman Is surfing the waves of indifference on, Fri 24 Dec 2010, 12:03, closed)

Your point is invalidated
by thinking that the Greens in power would be 'lovely.' I think that shows what a truly admirable and researched view on politics you have.
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 19:27, closed)

You're reading a lot into that bracketed comment.
The Green party is a lovely prospect, and they have some wonderful ideas on their manifesto, but many of the same ideas are also impractical.

And the Earth is a prick.
( Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:26, closed)

DON'T VOTE PINOCCHIO!



i can't even afford potatos(hop) since the coalition took my car/cash/clothes/boots/motorcycle
(itsthekais, Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:04, closed)

No excuse. GIMP is free
for now...


However your picture did make me chuckle :)
( Extinct Jesus Dossier "...I think it counteracts Hitler's magic...", Thu 23 Dec 2010, 20:21, closed)