The western front

Two contradictory trends, with a common cause, are helping the Lib Dems in the south-west and beyond

See article

Readers' comments



This is where you need a strong politician like Maggie.

She did bring Britain into the 20th century , and was not an elitist.
BUT she was divisive .
The trouble is the tories are starting to look elitist again , and the elite do look after their own.

is there one party here that is more concerned about the country , in it's hour of need ?


It is by no means a given that David Heath will manage to hold on to his Somerton & Frome seat. If he does, it will have less to do with a populair surge in Lib Dem support among young voters - the constituency has no universities - and everything with an ill-judged, cynical approach by the Tories at both a national and local level. A self-confessed posh and privileged candidate with questionable work experience and little or no other political qualifications than the fact that she joined the Conservative Party aged 5 seemed to pose less of a problem when the Tories appeared to be heading for an all-out majority. Now that all three parties are more equally balanced in the polls the focus has shifted to expose a profound lack of local political insight and policies. Local Tory websites and flyers simply refer to the national manifesto and a desire to support local pubs (how?). Polls indicate that a posh and privileged wannabe politician is the very last thing voters want after recent expense scandals. If Cameron's lazy attempt at an A-list shoe-in backfires in the South-West, the Tories will have only themselves to blame.


I concur with African Recycler 2, the situation is that Labour cannot be trusted (end of boom and bust indeed), and the Tories are trustworthy in only that the cream will remain at the top, and the EU may get a bumpier ride, not a Labour poodle.
The Lid-Dems are a nice counter to both, and a good way to keep them on track and doing things for the betterment of all, though no doubt they would prefer their friends in Brussels to do it all, thus no longer needing such debates and elections.

Either way, an end to the "Nanny state" and a reminding the politicians that they are there to serve, and no, they don't know what's best for the people, the people do, would be a refreshing change.

Here's hoping for a Lib-Con pact.


I have mentioned earlier, that I feel, the British voter will vote for the person, who will seem most likely to combat the economic illness. The two parties who will most likely be favoured, are the Labour Party, and the Liberal Democrats. I have read somewhere, that the Liberal Democrats have done well in elections, previously, but rarely, though I may be wrong. The name, 'Liberal Democrat', perhaps does not suggest to the voter, that strong action will be taken towards Great Britain's problems, as compared to the names, 'Labour', or 'Tory'.

African Recycler 2

Right analysis,wrong conclusion. What we see is disillusion with parties. The function of an MP is representation of the people, not representation of the party. That is why Lib Dem MP's tend to hang on and on regardless of national or party politics because they are constituency MP's who go about the business of representing the poeple in the constituency whether they voted for them or not. That is why it would be good to get a healthy number of Independents in the next Parliament. The route to better representation of the people lies in obligatory voting. Make it a duty to vote, even if you spoil the ballot, at least you have been along and done your duty to vote. Worry about the PR thing later. Having a turnout of 95+% would seriously shake up the whole government business. No change of voting system, constituency boundaries etc, just use the system fully. The big parties will suffer and the smaller ones, and independents, benefit.

An Ambassador

I think that most people are fed up with the two "main party's", well they have been stuck with them for ages, so they want a change. The LibDems, there the change, but in the end they will be no better. I say vote on substance not the Conservative propaganda party, Vote Labour, its just easier!

You could think of it like tea and coffee. Now most people used to drink tea, and for ages they did. Until they discovered coffee, and they drank coffee because they had drunk tea for an eternity and wanted a change. Everyone else drunk coffee, even loyal tea drinkers, because it was the thing to do. But in the end true Brits love to drink tea, and we all know this because its the best!

Tea = Labour
Coffee = Conservative
Drink/Drunk = vote/d


" this campaign is uniquely presidential ...."
this campaign is uniquely presidential looking. The issues are what always matter,
the LibDems are just acting as a catalyst for even greater probing of 'em.


It would perhaps be a healthy development for British politics if the Lib-Dems were to achieve sufficient numbers in the House to ensure that for the first time in several generations the party is actually involved in the difficult business of governing. Although over the last few years the party has eliminated or toned down many of its more eccentric policies, the fact remains that the Lib-Dems continue to hold views that may be difficult to reconcile with the practical business of running a country in a problematic world not much given to cuddly friendliness and easy answers. If Britain ends up with three parties each driven by the need for pragmatism and effectiveness, there could be much more real choice for voters henceforth, instead of the classic "protest vote" and "loony fringe" the Lib-Dems have hitherto garnered.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines
