Yes it's a very pretty map. But pretty irrelevant for assessing how popular the LibDems are - because, as I'm sure you're aware, the proportion of seats in our electoral system bears very little resemblance to how many people voted for each party. The important thing in this context is that the LibDem share of the vote
increased - and by at lot more than the Tory share of the vote increased.
"Stuff" that's in the public realm and common knowledge. If you've been paying attention to the last few years. Do you require a detailed analysis?
Well yes, if other people are not party to specific information that you are by implication claiming to know about a politician's record, then the polite thing would normally be to share that information, rather than just making vague statements like '
that's common knowledge' that don't actually help anyone who doesn't have that information.
Go and have a look at how popular she was polling before the election and how it got worse and worse. Have a look at her track record where she's voted in line with the Tory Government over 849 times,
Yes, she may well have done, but so what? It might possibly have escaped your attention that in 2010, the public voted in a Parliament in which the Tories were just short of a majority, and which there was therefore no reasonable way to avoi a Tory Government. Personally I don't agree a lot of the policies that Government enacted - especially on welfare cuts - but I also have to be realistic that the Tories (almost) won the election, and so their policies were going to be enacted. The LibDems evidently decided to compromise to some extent in order to get a stable Government for 5 years, rather than stay ideologically pure and risk a worse outcome. In that context, I would say that voting with the Tories is pretty understandable.
many of those votes were on deeply unpopular cuts to welfare.
Much as I disagree with many of those cuts, I think you'd have a hard time arguing that they are unpopular with the wider electorate, given that the Tories won the subsequent general election outright.
Here we go again..... ok for the
second time
From our very own forum, note the date, here's just one example
https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...re-you-voting-for.191053/page-31#post-4318551
You are being disingenuous. In that post, you linked to something that it turned out wasn't a lie at all. And then, with that example having been demonstrated as not being a lie, you persisted in (incorrectly) asserting that it was.
Here's some more for you regarding the lies she told about Corbyn. Do you need other sources or will this be enough for you?
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...are-still-the-same-old-power-hungry-chancers/
https://www.thecanary.co/trending/2...t-posted-that-latest-lie-about-jeremy-corbyn/
All politicians are liars are they not?
So DynamicSpin........now is where you kindly
retract your statements.
Ah, at last! Something specific! It's a shame you've chosen to link - not to a trustworthy news site, but to a left-wing propaganda blog that has a long record of pretty dubious accuracy. Not a site that I would trust without checking if I can find the same information elsewhere.
But having said that. Yes, I looked at the Tweet about Corbyn - I even dug up
the direct link for you, and I'll give you that is pretty bad. I would concede that saying "
Jeremy Corbyn didn’t fight to remain in 2016" is not true - and since Swinson ought to know it's not true, that does look like a lie. So yes, based on that, we do (finally) have one example of what appears to be a lie that Swinson has told. I would say that seeing that tweet does lower my opinion of Swinson somewhat, although at the same time, it's one isolated thing, so it doesn't by itself justify all the over-the-top hyperbole you've been posting.
(And btw, couldn't you have just linked to that Twitter post when this discussion first came up, instead of continually making vague comments about her 'record' that just leave other people non the wiser?)