UK Liberal Democrats leadership election, 2017

[Leftbehind]

I think the main issue with Farron's performance was that there was opportunity for Lib Dems thanks to Tories becoming the party of Hard Brexit and then they managed to do WORSE than they did with Clegg in power (in terms of % of the vote, of course, they managed some gains thanks to anti-Tory movement in some areas).

Exactly - they were hoping to make inroads from a left-wing Labour led by a Eurosceptic who was widely blamed (unfairly, I thought) for losing the referendum, but instead their leader managed to repel many social liberals and Labour got away scot-free. 2015 was a disaster election for them, returning their vote to the pre-1974 breakthrough, and yet under Farron they've won less votes - that's unquestionably a failure.

[Leftbehind]

Honestly, I would prefer the LibDems to just die now. Let's move back to a two-party system and offer Britain a clear choice for their future.

In many ways May surpassed Thatcher last week, however unlike Thatcher she didn't have a divided opposition vote that is electorally crucified by FPTP. The only future of the left is the none-revival of the Liberals, and given they've had five years of opposition and they've barely moved an inch except in the minority of seats where they're the only game in town, it seems that the good-will they burnt by going into the coalition has gone for good and the electorate mindset is one of two-party (except in Scotland, where the left lost ground).

[Leftbehind]

When the merged party started in 1988, as the Social and Liberal Democrats, it tried using the short name the Democrats. Unfortunately this confused the electorate, who had no idea who this new group were. The party rapidly settled upon Liberal Democrats as the short name, which eventually became the official name of the party.

That's hilarious.

[Leftbehind]

Instructional image (number of seats within share range; middle column):-



The divisions in Labour over Brexit might offer an opportunity for their revival, but as it stands whoever they choose is stepping into a situation when they're nowhere in 92% of GB seats (they're 2nd in only 1 seat of the 2nd tier, so are liable to be squeezed into <10%).

[Leftbehind]

Before the 2015 collapse in Scotland, Labour's vote was actually much more efficient than the Tories.

The Liberal Democrats are unlikely to make enormous gains at any one election, but are in no realistic danger of disappearing however much partisans of other parties might wish they would.

No-one's actually said that - they're just returning to their pre-74 position, of having a minority of Liberal bulwarks (several of those won back last week) but a vote so weak in 90%> of the country that it gets squeezed out of relevance - as can be seen by looking at the changes since 2015 in most seats.

[Leftbehind]

I'm not sure why but I kind of like the vibe I get from Lamb.

Me too. He kind of comes across as a standard Labour member.

He was the Orange Bookers choice at the last leadership election!

[Leftbehind]

10 pages devoted to that...

[Leftbehind]

I think, on balance, you could make that argument, yes.