A Place to Stand

The latest polls show the Conservatives ahead at 3% of the vote with Labour matching the LibDims at 28%. This is worse than it looks for the LDs since it shows a declining trend from only days ago when they were on a rising trend ahead of the Tories & follows the Guardian & Independent (& even Labour leaders Hain & Balls) swinging behind them.

Getting up to the same proportion as the other 2 parties was the big hurdle because up till thien the "wasted vote" line was credible. After passing that & indeed putting the vote wasting label on Labour it should have been easy. What went wrong? Well basically people looked at what they were offering & it wasn't very good. The argument against voting Lab/Con is that they aren't worth voting for & are indistinguishable. Well the LDs are only distinguishable by being slightly less distinguishable than the other 2. On wanting to destroy half the economy by cutting electricity supply; promoting criminal wars; supporting the EU superstate; promoting genocide, child sexual slavery & organlegging; nanny statism; windmillery; promoting immigration; breaking Manifesto promises (on the referendum); opposition to traditional liberal free marketism; having a bland leader with no life experience outside government; unwillingness to discuss the issues that matter to people; hollowing out their membership to become simply media images; promoting ever more state fascist parasitism the LibDems differ from the other 2 only in being marginally more fascist than the other 2.

The big issue on which they have a clear & unassailable lead is their promotion of a democratic voting system. This is unassailable because we know they see it in their interest & the other 2 don't (Labour in particular having broken manifesto commitments for PR in 3 of their last 3 elections). When they were on a roll that could have won it for them. Making the major issue a democratic system, with a promise to introduce democratic voting & then quickly have a new election would have attracted votes from the 56.4% of the electorate who, at the European election, voted for PR parties. The main argument against voting LD is that they have no chance & previous polls have shown 49% of people willing to vote for them if they did - well now they could & the LDs have fumbled the ball just when they were on the winning line.

The contempt of the electorate for politicians is manifest (& as Gordon Brown has shown more than reciprocated). That is the real reason for the "expenses scandal" - there is nothing new in such expense misuse & it has been known for decades. That is the reason why even now 40% of people are "undecided". That is the reason for low turnouts.

An LD campaign which had played to their sole strength would have won. I think a leader with the popular appeal & trust of Charles Kennedy rather than the cardboard cut-out Clegg would have won. I am certain that had they been a traditional liberal party offering real solution they would have won easily.

I believe that it would be in the interests of the party, as well as the country, to commit itself to traditional liberal policies & particularly to achieving economic success - time after time it is shown that the electorate want wealth, whereas Ludditism, bicycling, windmills & banning things are not popular Even if it is decided that such matters are "incompatible with membership of the party" this would only prove that liberalism & membership of the Lib Dems are incompatible. I must leave that decision in your hands & those of the Appeals Tribunal.

I have said that nuclear power is more cost effective & reliable than windmills, that strong economic growth is preferable to the UK's current comparative decline & Scotland's steep decline & that illegal war, ethnic cleansing, genocide & child sex slavery are wrong.

Traditional free market liberalism is sweeping the world because it works. Cameron also failed to "seal the deal" with the public because of his illiberalism & almost everything I have said here applies, in a slightly less extreme form to them - if they win it will because they are slightly less extremely bad than that they are any good.

Labels: British politics, election, Government parasitism