Yeah, well, I hope Cleggy does pay attention. We on the left are used to being sold out by our political leaders almost immediately after an election, but selling us out before might be a bit much. It would be good to hear Clegg say the right thing soon.

The triumphant success of Scandinavianisation. There exists a majority in favour of crashing the ship on the rocks, out of a false fear they might be thrown overboard first.

The only figures here that are worth looking at are the ‘forced choice’ would you prefer a Labour Government or a Conservative Government. Things may have changed with the tightening of the polls, but the last time I saw this question in a poll, Lib Dems favoured a Conservative Government by something like 2 to 1.

There’s a danger of confusing the viscerally anti-Tory activist base with the much less tribal electorate.

Darrell says: “Liberal Democrat voters prefer the approach of their shadow chancellor, Vince Cable who has made it quite clear that he will not support an emergency Conservative budget to cut the deficit immediately.”

Today’s FT says: “The Liberal Democrats have attempted to calm nervous financial markets by a promise not to use their pivotal position in a hung parliament to plunge Britain back into another general election. Nick Clegg, Lib Dem leader, told the Financial Times that his party would act as the “guarantors of fiscal stability” if the next election were to produce no clear victor.”

*ROFL*

I know what Brown stands for, but I think it’s the wrong thng. I also think he is trying to do good, unfortunately though he isn’t doing good so a fat lot of fucking good that is.

People will give him that he’s doing is best, we just think that he’s running along the wrong lines so redoubling his efforts will make everything worse.

If there’s so little difference, why did you feel the need to switch parties? Because the leadership offends you, bcause you didn’t fit in amongst activists, or what?

I owe allegiance to no party, only to my own values & will support whoever I think offers the best solutions in any given context. Which means opposing Brown & those who cleave to him.

This is confused. The stats in the post basically say that Lib Dems like Brown a lot less than Labour people do, and they like Cameron a lot less than Tory people do. This isn’t particularly surprising or enlightening.

6

You could in fact say those with a LibDem ID are ‘equidistant’ between Lab and Con.

J’amuse

“For example, 52% of Liberal Democrat voters agree that Gordon Brown has a ’strong sense of right and wrong’ compared to just 37% who think the same of Cameron.” So that’s +15%. For Labour, the lead is +78%. For the Tories, it’s -22%.

If you really want to play this game, the difference between LD and C is 37% and the difference between LD and Lab is 63%. The same is true for other statistics – reversed when you get to questions about the Tories, so you have Lib Dems lining up with Labour – including how well voters understand party stances on issues.

So you misrepresent the statistics – Lib Dem voters are closer to Conservatives when it comes to Brown, and they’re closer to Labour when it comes to Cameron. Hey, we have equidistance.

Feel free to use a basically Labour website to snipe at your party leader and boost your own status among Labour bloggers, but don’t misrepresent statistics while you do it.

@ 5 I know what Brown stands for, but I think it’s the wrong thing. I also think he is trying to do good

Agreed.

I knew Brown as a young man and to understand his current actions, you have to understand where he came from.

As a “son of the manse” his “youthful rebellion” was to reject the church. However in doing so he never really lost the core Calvinist values of compassion, duty, responsibility and work. Instead, these values became bound up in his politics- it was a short (but somewhat dangerous) leap from Presbyterianism to socialism.

So whilst he is undoubtedly trying to lead us down a road paved with good intentions it seems to me he is doing so at the indulgence his own perverted God complex. That was why he enjoyed the financial crisis so much. Because he got to play Moses!!!

His authoritarian communitarianism should be anathema to any liberal and to support him in power Clegg would surely have to sell the soul of his own party first.

Not saying he won’t.

Until Nick Clegg became party leader, much of the LibDem membership made claim to be “left-wing” or even “more left-wing” than Labour and certainly more Green.

@BobB

Much of the LibDem membership still are that, thanks.

@5 “Feel free to use a basically Labour website to snipe at your party leader and boost your own status among Labour bloggers, but don’t misrepresent statistics while you do it.”

Actually whatever it may say in his footer, I don’t believe Darrell is a Lib Dem anymore, having left earlier this year.

Sigh. Lib Dems are used to getting told by various media outlets and bloggers aligned with the other two parties that they must do this, must do that, are really more like *this*, no, they’re more like *this*. It’s like being an orange and constantly having people try and tell you you’re mostly like an apple or mostly like a banana. We’re a fucking orange, ok?

@TimJ

“There’s a danger of confusing the viscerally anti-Tory activist base with the much less tribal electorate.”

Not necessarily so, actually. If LDV can be assumed to pick up a fairly high proportion of activists in its periodic membership surveys, these results are interesting:

* 23% – Steer well clear of any form of negotiations or coalition with Labour or Conservatives
* 6% – Be ready to negotiate only with Labour on that basis
* 5% – Be ready to negotiate only with the Conservatives on that basis
* 63% – Be equally ready to negotiate with either Labour or the Conservatives on that basis
* 3% – Don’t know / No opinion

(sample 200)

http://www.libdemvoice.org/hung-parliament-63-of-lib-dem-members-back-equidistance-from-labour-and-tories-17917.html

Just a minor point here, but since when was at least half the Liberal Democrats (the Liberal bit) ever left-wing?

The are liberal, which is a position (in British politics) best expressed as floating between left and right wing depending on what is the most liberal option. It is colonising by the left wing (perhaps due to the centralising lead of recent Labour leaders) to try and claim liberal positions for their own. By definition socialism at least is an antithesis of classic liberalism, so to claim the left wing as the natural home for liberals is also to deny that socialism (or any other authoritarian tendency) is anything to do with the left wing.

Hm. And also, these stats are very misused. Nearly all these questions link in some way to a commonly understood image problem experienced by either Brown or Cameron.

Brown’s image problem is that he’s a bully. Cameron does not have this particular image problem. That’s why 24% of LD voters think Brown’s a bully and only 7% of them think Cameron is. That doesn’t mean they prefer Cameron.

In the same way, Cameron’s image problem is that he’s a slimey toff. Brown doesn’t have this image problem. That’s why 44% thinks Brown wants to help all the groups in Britain and only 11% think Cameron does. It doesn’t mean they prefer Brown. The slimey toff image problem probably also explains the response to the question about telling the truth.

In fact the most neutral question is probably “Does Brown/Cameron have the kind of character to be an effective Prime Minister?” Result 24/26 respectively.

We’re a fucking orange, ok?

No. With a more liberal emphasis you could be an orange.

As things stand, you’re a fruit salad.

Nick Clegg, Lib Dem leader, told the Financial Times that his party would act as the “guarantors of fiscal stability” if the next election were to produce no clear victor.”

Well – they’d still do better than ‘we need some change’ Osborne.

Alix: In fact the most neutral question is probably “Does Brown/Cameron have the kind of character to be an effective Prime Minister?” Result 24/26 respectively.

But that’s unsurprising since we’d expect them to think the Libdems would do the best job.

I think the point here is about alignment on issues.

Darell says: he latest YouGov poll illustrated how the attitudes of Labour / Libdem voters tend to have more in common than Conservative / Libdems voters.

- which is spot on. Even if you look at the polls at how they see two of the main leaders, LD/Lab voters are more aligned against the Tories than Con/LD voters are against Gordon Brown.

Even on other poling looking at whether GB / Cameron are doing well as leaders – Lab/LD voters more aligned than Con/LD voters.

That is a fact.

The left-wing of the Lib Dems could fit into Labour if Labour became more liberal, and the right-wing of the Lib Dems could fit into the Tories if the Tories became more liberal. Liberals exist in both of the big two parties. Socialists and social democrats exist in both Labour and the Lib Dems. Right-leaning libertarians exist in both the Tories and the Lib Dems.

The reason everyone says the Lib Dems should join with one of the other main parties is because they don’t offer anything that you can’t get in one of the other two.

@Pagar

I really walked into that one, didn’t I.

@Sunny

“I think the point here is about alignment on issues.”

But you don’t address my point about the connection of most of the Brown/Cameron questions with image problems? Very few of those questions are neutral. They all elicit a popular media theme connected to one or other leader. Most of them seem to target Cameron’s image problems. If you’d added a few more which targeted Brown’s image problems – e.g. “Do you think Brown/Cameron tends to act decisively?”, “Do you think Brown/Cameron is too obsessive over detail to function effectively?” then you’d have seen a higher level of negatives against Brown. That’s indicative of nothing more than reading newspapers.

The cuts issue, which is the only one you and Darren deal with to support your contention on issues alignment, is a bit of a red herring in my view. All parties have danced all over the head of the pin on this one and it’s only in the last month or two that we’ve always been at war with Eurasia. Until very late, Labour were still suggesting that cuts would never be necessary, then they became pro-cuts later. Initially, the Tories were talking about cuts immediately, then there was a retreat to cuts later and a partial re-advance until now they’re at small cuts now and large cuts later. The Lib Dems first went for cuts later (the savage ones), before shifting to just large cuts later-but-sooner-than-Labour. This is all just convictionless positioning and the notion that this is some kind of entrenched ideological war is wishful.

Of course (and I must stress I’d be in the “Don’t know” category myself), it’s even possible that there is a right and wrong answer to the cuts now or later question. The outcomes are more measurable than a lot of things, after all. So suppose those 49% Lib Dem voters and 60% Labour voters are right, and cuts later proves to be a demonstrably better option. Doesn’t that just mean that they’re both right, rather than that they’re ideologically aligned?

“The reason everyone says the Lib Dems should join with one of the other main parties is because they don’t offer anything that you can’t get in one of the other two.”

But you’ve nixed your own point by using the phrase “one of the other two”. The Lib Dems offer a combination of things you can only get as a combination in the Lib Dems. That’s fairly straightforward, surely?

It also explains why you draw in much less support than either of the other two. Politics isn’t a game of pick and mix. You have to make tough decisions about the state, about the market, about society, and about the relationship between all three.

Both big parties are a broad mix of views. But the Lib Dems, by their own members’ frequent admission, have a mix of views with two inherently contradictory ideologies: that the state can fight for social justice by intervening in the market (social liberalism), and that the state can fight for freedom by letting the market be ‘free (libertarianism)’. If you were offering a combo of ideologies that go well together, like Labour offer socialism, social democracy and social liberalism; and the Tories offer neoliberalism, one-nationism and libertarianism; that would be another issue.

In Europe, your sister parties tend to offer libertarianism and neoliberalism, i.e. pro-business anti-state stuff. You’re still clinging to your social liberalism, due to the English liberal tradition, but you have to make up your mind.

“Politics isn’t a game of pick and mix. You have to make tough decisions about the state, about the market, about society, and about the relationship between all three.”

Circular argument. You think the two old parties are the standards by which other parties should be judged and you’re used to the binary notion of two ideologies in conflict. Therefore any party that appears (to you) to include elements that can be found in the big two and which are (in your world) in conflict are “pick n mix” options. Try to consider the possibility that not everyone fits into one of two increasingly anachronistic mid-20th century boxes.

Blanco:

I think you’re missing classical liberalism from your little attempt to prove LibDems are inherently opposed to each other. Like it or not, British politics with respect to economics is a spectrum of potential levels of taxation and spending, not something with clear ideological dividing lines. It’s perfectly consistent (and indeed pragmatic) to view the market as a vehicle for freedom but nonetheless recognising that an unrestrained market can reduce other types of freedom for the individual. Try defining freedom beyond a narrow economic concept, as you do above, and you’ll see what I mean.

Alix, I like that we’ve both been equally patronising by ending our posts with a sentence beginning with ‘Try’. We liberals, we do so love to educate – but we better not make it compulsory.

Hehe. I dunno, I think there’s always a silent “…but I know you won’t” attached to the word “try” when used on the internet.

Sunny,

“I think the point here is about alignment on issues.

Darell says: he latest YouGov poll illustrated how the attitudes of Labour / Libdem voters tend to have more in common than Conservative / Libdems voters.

- which is spot on. Even if you look at the polls at how they see two of the main leaders, LD/Lab voters are more aligned against the Tories than Con/LD voters are against Gordon Brown.”

I fear you are missing an elephant in the room here. Liberal Democrats tend to have similiar issues of concern as Labour supporters. Fine. That does not mean they have similiar solutions in mind – if they did they would probably support Labour! In fact, the liberal tradition means that Liberal Democrats are more likely to come up with different ideas than the socialist/co-operative/organised labour traditions behind Labour. Just because people agree on issues does not mean they agree on solutions, which is where the major differences in politics occur.

“Liberal Democrats tend to have similiar issues of concern as Labour supporters.”

This is true, but it’s as true of Lib Dems and Tories. Or at least, that’s what the Tories keep trying to insist as regards civil liberties, localism and personal freedoms. Though they seem to have got bored with all that lately and gone to play with more fun interfering toys like marriage tax breaks and history curriculums. At any rate, it’s not shared ground between the Lib Dems and Labour.

Adam, I’ve just noticed Joe O has been on the other Lib-Dems-are-closer-to-Labour thread on this site and has also started his last para with “try”.

Alix,

You’ve more experience of Liberal Democrat’s concerns than me (mine are from friends I drink with – Liberal Democrats drinking, who’d have thought it…). However, I suspect if you asked an average Liberal Democrat (a fictional beast), Labour supporter (a functional beast…) and Conservative supporter (a beast?) to identify issues of concern, the best correlation would be between the Liberal Democrat and Labour supporters.

I agree there is an overlap between Conservative supporters and Liberal Democrats on civil liberties etc (incidentally, I suspect the Conservatives might start playing those cards again nearer the election), but as pollsters tend not to focus on these issues as widely as various social concerns, immigration etc (i.e. there are less headings in the field to select) this will show up less to people like Sunny who are looking to claim similiarity of interest.

You can’t examine this issue without taking civil liberties into account, where Tories and Lib Dems seem to be in close agreement

@Watchman

I think your second para is spot on. Being organised as a centralised social democracy and having a media concerned, one way or another, with what the state is doing tends to mean that issues pertaining to that area get more closely explored – by media, by pollsters and hence by politicians. So “social justice” and all its sub-divisions is more discussed than “liberty” and all its sub-divisions. What I would *expect* to be the case is that an aggregate of Lib Dems, asked to rank issues in order of priority, would mix all the sub-divisions in together, rather than ranking, e.g. all the social justice issues above all the liberty issues.

Tim J,

This poll was not of the Liberal Democrats activist base so I dont know what you mean by that really; it was of Lib Dem voters.

Letters,

And Cable has made it quite clear he wont support an emergency budget of the type planned by Osborne so again I am not sure what your point is. If its that there is a putative division between Clegg and Cable then I agree.

Incidentally, just refering back to what Letters has said is that not a clear indication that ‘equidistance’ is impractical; what Clegg said in the FT is an ackowledgement of that if ever there was one.

Um, Darrell? I know you never really got what Clegg’s about, but this last paragraph?

Political reality in both peoples perceptions and policy terms shows how much closer the Liberal Democrats are to Labour.

If Nick Clegg continues to ignore that reality then he will steer the Liberal Democrats onto a collision course with his own supporters.

Seems to be completely weird to me. He’s fully aware of the first part, and isn’t doing the second.

His clearly stated objective is to replace the Labour party as the clear preference for the anti-Tory majority in the country. He’s said that again and again and again and again, in many many different fora.

So I don’t know how “competing with Labour for the votes of those on the liberal left” equates to “a collision course with the supporters”, but it seems to make no sense at all.

I’ve stated that Clegg’s taking the party in a radically liberal and left wing direction, and I believe I even discussed this with you in the past–he definitely confirmed this when I asked him directly in the interview I did with him that I know you read the transcript of (Charlotte typed it up).

Others have demolished your palpably false use of the statistics, they’re broadly correct.

And I’ve emailed a site admin to get your auto-inserted footer changed now that Sunny’s away and can’t do it.

Wow, you can see the bitterness dripping from Mat Bowles’ latest barb at the “turncoat” Goodliff! There’s no need for it, Mat – just because Darrell will have input into the policies of a party that can actually form a government (by itself), and you won’t, is no excuse for such pettiness.

Typical Lib Demmery. It’s not enough you run the dirtiest campaigns on the ground – you have to come here and spread your poison against anyone who dares come to the simple realisation that being in the Lib Dems is a waste of time.

MatGB,

And this is a utopian dream and it will collapse under the weight of its own contradictions. You want electoral reform? Who are you going to side with? The Conservatives who want no change and there is zip support for it within the rank and file or Labour or who are at least offering a referendum on AV+. Personally, I prefer AV+ in any case but thats outside the scope of this discussion.

If Clegg backs Cameron he will make a hypocrite out of Cable who has clearly said on numerous occasions he wont under any circumstances support an Osborne emergency budget. People who had supported the party as a protest against Labour will desert it in droves etc and before you say Clegg doesnt have to concretly support one party over another well yes he does because he has just told the FT he will. So, lets stop the posturing and get down to brass tacks….a Lib Dem/Labour deal is the only one on the table…..

And where did I even attack Darrell Blanco? Those are mighty fine windmills don Quijote. Darrell lives quite close to me, we’ve met, there’s no bitterness between us that I’m aware of. I know about the problems within Leeds, and the reasons for Darrell’s departure, and frankly I’m glad I don’t live in the city at the moment, the partisan rivalry between all three parties is palpable and damaging.

We’ve rarely agreed on substantive issues, and we’ve always disagreed over Clegg’s leadership, and his interpretation of Clegg’s leadership has always struck me as skewed. But in this post, he’s attacked Clegg without actually giving any evidence as to what Clegg’s done that’s wrong. Which is why I’m calling him on it.

If you want to believe that Labour members have any say over Govt policy these days, go ahead; I thought those days were long gone.

As to the oft repeated but never justified complaint about Lib Dem election campaigns, if they’re so awful why are both the other parties now mimicking them all over the country?

you have to come here

Actually, I was invited by the founders, and am always told I should contribute more. If you think my opinion is “poison”, well, you’re entitled to an opinion, as is Darrell. I’m a liberal, I believe in free expression, which has to be balanced by free discourse and rebuttal. Liberal, is after all, in the name of the site.

@Darrell

I think the fundamental mistake you’re making in trying to reason with the Lib Dems is the assumption that they want the responsibility that comes with power, with being part of a coalition government.

They don’t.

They want to criticise other parties, safe in the knowledge that they will never have to compromise on their policies – because they’ll never be in power.

As a party, they are an evolutionary dead-end. Going nowhere.

As to the oft repeated but never justified complaint about Lib Dem election campaigns, if they’re so awful why are both the other parties now mimicking them all over the country?

Copycat murders are still murders.

Copycat mudslinging “only we can win here!”/dodgy bar charts/saying one thing to one group of electors and another thing to another campaigns are still mudslinging “only we can win here!”/dodgy bar charts/saying one thing to one group of electors and another thing to another campaigns.

I wouldn’t take it as a compliment that the likes of Labour and the Tories are copying your campaign style. in fact, I’d take it as a sign that you need to change the way you do things. No wonder your level of support is so low, people don’t know what they’re getting with the Lib Dems!

And as I typed…

Who are you going to side with? … a Lib Dem/Labour deal is the only one on the table

Um, what? Why do you have to “side” with anyone?

You ought to know the history of this country’s politics–minority Govts used to be the norm, and Clegg has stated he’s not going to side with either of the other two parties for very well stated reasons.

You also should know that where I live (Calderdale for other readers), the minority Tory administration has been kept in power for the last few years with the support of the Labour group.

This whole “who will the Lib Dems choose” meme has been discounted and discredited so many times now by so many different people it’s silly.

And for electoral reform, you need to persuade the country and a majority of MPs–a preferendum would be a good plan.

Oh, and Dave the arsehole’s on record as saying he prefers STV (the long preferred reform) to any other proposed changed, and AV+ is an abomination ont he face of democracy–if that’s all that’s on offer, no thanks. AV on its own is just about palatable as a first step, AV+ is a waste of time.

Liberal Drinks tomorrow night, you fancy coming along?

@Blanco,

Possibly because where they have power in Leeds the situation is pretty dire and their support for fairness hasn’t really panned-out that well in practice. To be fair to Mat I don’t have a problem with my footer being changed because its technically inaccurate and like he says we simply don’t agree on the Clegg leadership.

Following the election they will hit the evolutionary dead-end you talk about and the concrete choice facing the members will be simply where do they stand. Either they are progressives, in which case they must line-up with Labour or they aren’t.I think Clegg will line-up with Cameron on the basis of a negative ‘anti-Labour’ opportunism and because he is deluded in his belife about replacing Labour; which is pretty much why the Lib Dems in Leeds lined-up with the Tories and look how *that* ended-up….

Blanco, I don’t think you’re particularly on-message with the coalition-building aims of this site. On the other hand, if what you want is an echo chamber in which you get to stuff your fingers in your ears and pretend no small parties can possibly exist on their own merits and that it’s legitimate to hurl unfounded generalised accusations at them for the Greater Good, I guess you’re going the right way about getting one.

Bravo, Alix! Yet more complaints from Lib Dems about how they are being “treated” and “misrepresented”. If that is how they genuinely feel, then perhaps they know how the rest of us feel about having to put up with those constant complaints. To most of us, it sounds like a distant, high-pitched whine: “It’s not FAIR!”

Honestly, pull your yellow fingers out and get a move on. You can only blame other people for your lack of support for so long. It’s like you want something to complain about.

The one thing that unites campaigners whether Tory, Labour, Green or otherwise, is that Lib Dems fight the dirtiest local campaigns. That is not an unfounded accusation, it is the sum experience of so many campaigners in the UK.

For what it’s worth, I do think the country could do with a third party. I don’t think the Lib Dems provide that. I take on board all the high-flight nonsense about wanting to give the voters a more nuanced, pick and mix choice about being touchy-feely socially liberal on some things and then undermining it completely with free-market libertarian lunacy on others: I also note the condescending tone, which you and another Lib Dem commenter yourselves acknowledge.

But here’s the rub: politics has gone in one direction for thirty years now. The British people aren’t interested in half-measures, or “a little bit of this, and a little bit of that”. They want politicians who aren’t afraid to say, hell yes I’m progressive, or, hell yes I’m conservative. They don’t want anoraks who want to argue over every single bit of policy.

Sorry, luvs. You are policy geeks not political power-seekers. You will get what you deserve and desire, i.e. no influence.

The biggest indictment of your pointlessness is that you have been unable to overtake Labour on the centre-left of British politics (and Clegg has himself said this is where the Lib Dems are, rather than completely above the whole left-right axis). You think it’s better to quibble than to get down to brass tacks. Labour have let everyone down. The Tories are like a teenage boy fumbling around trying to undo a bra. Where are you?

Lib Dems, where are you?

Nowhere. That’s where.

You can argue all you like that liberalism is the best ideology. But why aren’t you in power?

FYI Alix, small parties can exist. They have to:

a) not be shit

b) recognise that at some point they will need to join with one of the larger parties in order to have any influence.

A party that does not seek influence = shit.

Blanco, re point b, what makes you think that that point is now? At this stage, there is no way the Lib Dems could consider allying with New Labour with the current leadership, who are committed to deeply illiberal policies on a large variety of issues.

While at the same time, working directly with vacuous Cameron isn’t tenable.

Refusing that false choice between two groups of incompetents isn’t rejecting influence, it’s the only politically viable option.

And as for this strange belief that having a seat at the cabinet table is the only way to change policy, tell that to Lord Clement-Jones.

Mat Bowles, this is the only chance the Lib Dems have had in a generation, and might be the only chance you’ll get for another generation, to have influence.

Arguably, never have we needed a third party to stop equivocating and strengthen the argument either for the state, or for the free market. You cannot have your cake and eat it. You have to make a choice: some influence, or no influence.

You’ve just proven that you aren’t interested in change or progress, however incremental they might be: you just want to sit on the sidelines and snipe at others.

Good luck with that.

it seems to be intuitively true that libs are closer to lab, but I attended a debate last night where Tim Loughton and Annette Brook didn’t disagree on a single point, whereas the Baroness Morgan – well, it was tricky,so don’t be so sure… (<——- non-partisan comment…allegedly).

Apparently when Cameron is PM most of the country won’t trust him and won’t feel he knows there problems. Not a good starting point for someone about to implement savage cuts.

Wow, Blanco. Calm down with the hatez. Like I say, I’m not sure you’re very much with the LibCon program.

Alix man, it’s not the hate. It’s the condescension (sp?) dripping from your little Liberal barbs, which gets on my bonkers. Normally I wouldn’t object to the uninfluential third party and its band of right-wing libertarian stooges that don’t really belong in the same party as real progressives. But this is crunch time, mate: it’s time to decide if you’ll let best get in the way of better.

It’s the condescension…which gets on my bonkers

Um, what? Have you actually read your own comments to this thread, “man” (Alix, as anyone following the link can see, is female)

the uninfluential third party

I’ve already pointed out, in this very thread, in reply to you that the party already has significant influence, and that a Cabinet seat isn’t necessary, and can at times be reducing, influence.

If you keep repeating a point after it’s already been rebutted, it makes you look, um, what’s the word? Oh yes, condescending.

its band of righ[left]t-wing libertarian[liberal] stooges[campaigners]

Corrected you there, or have you now decided to ignore the substantive point of Darrell’s actual post?

Either you’re being incredibly obtuse, or you’re trolling. Either way, I can’t be bothered with you, as you’ve contradicted yourself more than once in this discussion, and it’s pointless if you’re going to ignore the substance and play the person instead.

You, personally, loath Lib Dems. Fine, knock yourself out. I’ll file you under ‘ignore’, it’s easier.