[Delta Usafa]

Since the debate that is. That's all!

Edit: coalition government with them in it counts as a yes.

[.ACS.]

Not to get into government, but I do fear it means a more likely scenario of a hung-parliament, which IMO will be bad for British politics. It could, indeed, mean letting Labour get in through the back door.

[yoyo462001]

Mean hung parlimaent is more likely. They would need the biggest landslide ever x2 to get in, however they will certainly gain more seats.

[bigmo7]

(Original post by .ACS.)
Not to get into government, but I do fear it means a more likely scenario of a hung-parliament, which IMO will be bad for British politics. It could, indeed, mean letting Labour get in through the back door.

I though Nick Clegg expressed his opinions about forming a coalition and that he'd rather form a coalition with the Tories than Labour.

[Liquidus Zeromus]

They have a chance of getting a significant portion of the vote, and may come second or close to it... which would mean a hung parliament and a chance at the next general election if they play their cards right.

[SirMasterKey]

I'd hope so but I doubt it with how much they'd need things to swing in their favour.

As others have said it's more likely to result in a hung parliament.

[JOK3R]

They will win.

[morg]

liberal who?

haha just kidding, i do believe it has helped their chances for a hung parliament but i don't think they will get into power

[BlueRoses]

Idealistically, yes.
Realistically, probably not.

I'm still voting for them though

[JW92]

(Original post by .ACS.)
Not to get into government, but I do fear it means a more likely scenario of a hung-parliament, which IMO will be bad for British politics. It could, indeed, mean letting Labour get in through the back door.

The Lib Dems take votes from both parties, really.

[Renegade Dagger]

(Original post by bigmo7)
I though Nick Clegg expressed his opinions about forming a coalition and that he'd rather form a coalition with the Tories than Labour.

Hmmm? Did you ascertain this from the debate or did he say this somewhere else? (If so, do you have a link?)

[Jacky_B]

I voted yes, but they always did have a chance.

[Signatured]

I thought Nick Clegg did well tonight, it seems he has some good ideas.

[Ebbson]

I think people are quite short sighted. Sure they might not win. But each election is a chance to establish themselves as serious contenders in the next, surely? If you agree with their policies and believe they would be represent your views in parliament, why not give them your vote and you might see them in serious competition in the future.

[Muffinz]

Yes. I wish people would stop saying "The Lib Dems won't win" because that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Disgrace]

No. This is a television debate. The fad will pass. Although it is nice to see them get coverage.

The question is that if they take votes, who from and will that create a clear majority or not?

[bigmo7]

(Original post by Renegade Dagger)
Hmmm? Did you ascertain this from the debate or did he say this somewhere else? (If so, do you have a link?)

Mr Clegg would not be drawn on whether he favoured joining an administration led by either Labour or the Tories.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...10/8614630.stm

Well apparently he doesn't favour either party and he wouldn't support the spending cuts that the Tories are proposing so I dunno. Can't remember when I heard his say it or if I ever did.

[nuodai]

They're very unlikely to get in. No matter how good they might be, there are more people who have hard-wired political allegiances (particularly to Labour and Conservative) who will vote for said parties no matter what they do; a bit like the system in the USA where people vote Republican and Democrat because they've been brought up to do so. It'll be a good few years before the Liberal Democrats actually stand a chance of winning a general election. However as others have said, Nick Clegg came across very well in the prime ministerial debate; he's definitely got my vote, but I don't think it's a realistic outcome that they'll win the election.

[elliotcallard]

(Original post by nuodai)
They're very unlikely to get in. No matter how good they might be, there are more people who have hard-wired political allegiances (particularly to Labour and Conservative) who will vote for said parties no matter what they do; a bit like the system in the USA where people vote Republican and Democrat because they've been brought up to do so. It'll be a good few years before the Liberal Democrats actually stand a chance of winning a general election. However as others have said, Nick Clegg came across very well in the presidential debate; he's definitely got my vote, but I don't think it's a realistic outcome that they'll win the election.

almost right.

I will eat my hat and every other hat I can find if the LibDem's win. Brown was obviously trying to court some Liberal Democrats by constantly stressing 'I know Nick agrees with me here' in the hope of forming a coalition with him in the event of a hung parliament. Clegg probably just about won but by such a small amount I'd say its probably not too significant, with Brown second and Cameron in last place seems to be the general consensus of the many many polls that looked at the debate. Lots were incredibly bad though, ITV.com's 'worm' over the screen was the opinion of just 20 people.

[MJlover]

(Original post by .ACS.)
Not to get into government, but I do fear it means a more likely scenario of a hung-parliament, which IMO will be bad for British politics. It could, indeed, mean letting Labour get in through the back door.

I hope I don't sound stupid, as I don't know they technicalities of parliament, but does hung parliament mean the same as a grand coalition - because I have a strong feeling that will happen.